Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 14 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Milk

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received about the future marketing of milk.

Mr. Luff: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the reorganisation of the milk marketing board.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are consulting on the milk marketing board's amended reorganisation scheme.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the milk market is in a state of structural deficit because of the operation of quotas? Does she therefore further agree that if Milk Marque—whose motto is "He who dares, wins" —obtains 80 per cent. of the milk market, as it wants to, there is a danger that there will be exploitation of the consumer and of the food processing industry, and a loss of jobs in that industry? Does that not provide an unanswerable case for having a milk regulator?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is fresh from his agricultural triumphs of yesterday, but he appears to be proposing a form of "Ofmilk" that I do not entirely favour. The Government's view is that Milk Marque should be subject to the competition authorities, exactly like any other business. We regard that as an adequate protection for consumers, producers and businesses.

Mr. Luff: May I urge my right hon. Friend to resist the pressure from the industrial giants of the dairy business and to stand up instead for the interests of the dairy farmers of Worcestershire and the rest of the country by ending the uncertainty over the marketing of milk at the earliest possible date? Is she aware that in my constituency of Worcester, where Milk Marque will have its headquarters,

creating up to 50 new jobs, there is enthusiasm for the idea that the free market in milk, along the lines suggested by the MMB, should come into existence by the end of the year at the latest?

Mrs. Shephard: Both my hon. Friends have clearly illustrated the balance that needs to be maintained between the interests of producers, consumers and business. I greatly regret the delay in setting up the new revised arrangements—1 April was the date selected by the board itself—but I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) that, in the interests of his constituents and of consumers, producers and businesses, it is more important to get the arrangements right than to proceed too quickly to an artificial deadline.

Mr. Maxton: What representations has the right hon. Lady received and what discussions has she had with the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that, whatever the future structure for the marketing of milk in England may be, it will actively encourage greater sale and use of both skimmed and semi-skimmed milk for the sake of the future health of the nation?

Mrs. Shephard: We are in close touch with the Department of Health both on the excellent document "The Health of the Nation" and on all kinds of advice given to consumers. As I have said in the past, I believe that common sense should prevail in such matters.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that in all sectors of the milk industry there is growing impatience at the Government's delay, caused partly by the MMB, in reaching a firm decision on the reorganisation of milk marketing in England and Wales?

Mrs. Shephard: Yes. As I have already said, I greatly regret the delay. Considerable progress is now being made. MAFF officials have had many discussions with the board about the scheme, and the board has now submitted amendments to the reorganisation scheme. A further set of amendments was submitted as recently as 2 March. We issued the consultation document for producers, consumers and other businesses on 9 March, and we have asked for responses by 8 April, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that we are pushing matters on.

Food Sales Abroad

Mr. Hendry: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she is taking to encourage the sale of British food abroad.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): We have launched a number of initiatives. The latest is the continental challenge which is helping United Kingdom food suppliers to exploit the opportunities presented by the continental retail market.

Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the food trade deficit has halved since the 1960s, and will he welcome the new food marketing course unveiled by my right hon. Friend the Minister at Sheffield Hallam university, which shows that the Government, the producers and the academic world are working together more closely than ever before to boost British food exports?

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend and can confirm the contribution that our approach to food marketing has made to help to reduce the current food deficit, which is still all too large, but at least progress has been made in the right direction. He is right to emphasise marketing, which is the key to ensuring that food producers produce what the marketplace wants, whether at home or abroad.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would not the Germans be much reassured about imported beef if there were a live test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy available in the United Kingdom? May we have an absolute assurance that the Government are supporting every project to research the issue of a live test?

Mr. Jack: I think that the German Government would do themselves a great favour if they considered the excellent scientific report on the safety of British beef which has already been agreed not only by scientists in the United Kingdom but by Community scientists. The German Government are waging a wholly spurious campaign. We consider every sensible proposal for additional research in this sphere, but, as I said, the German Government could do far worse than examine the evidence already before them.

Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend recall that a few years ago the United Kingdom used to export pigmeat and pigmeat products? Is he aware that that is no longer the case, partly due to the decline of our domestic production as a consequence of the alleged illegal dumping of pigmeat and pigmeat products on our market by our European competitors?

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has raised in the Council of Ministers and with the Commissioner questions of, for example, illegal state aid in France. I refer my hon. Friend to a recent report produced by the Meat and Livestock Commission which examined the pig industry. He will find in it some interesting facts, especially in relation to the type of pig produced here and our processing industry which, if altered, would deal with some of the marketing problems to which my hon. Friend rightly referred.

Dr. Strang: But surely the Minister recognises that the German Government's decision to press for a ban on the import of British beef into Germany has aroused British concern about BSE? I accept that there is no evidence of a link between BSE in cattle and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in human beings, but is the Minister satisfied that the Medical Research Council has all the resources that it needs to do all the research that it can, taking into account the fact that the incubation period for CJD in human beings is very long? Will he welcome the German Government's decision to embark on their own research project to consider the possibility, however remote, of a link between BSE and CJD? In the meantime—[Interruption.] It is a very important issue—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that it is a very important issue, but a supplementary question means one question, not a catalogue of statements or long explanations. There should be only one supplementary question, from wherever it comes.

Dr. Strang: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. Will the Minister reconsider the decision not to accept the Select Committee's recommendation to ban the use of calf brain and offal in the human food chain?

Mr. Jack: I am surprised at the line that the hon. Gentleman has taken on this serious matter, because the way in which he approaches it lends credence to some of the misleading reports that certain newspapers have published on BSE in this country. The reporting of half bits of information and half-truths without exploring the excellent science base that already exists does not diminish in any way the statements of safety that have been made about the consumption of home-produced beef.
As I said a moment ago, in my view, the German Government will look carefully at our own science which is excellently resourced, as is the science in the European Community. If they want to do their own scientific tests, they can do so. However, what they are proposing is illegal, it breaks the single market concept and it is fundamentally wrong.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that reducing production costs is a way to encourage the export of food and food products from this country? Therefore, will the Ministry look favourably at a proposal from my constituents trading as Flightpath Farmers, who want to feed the modest excess of quota that they are producing on their dairy farms as dried milk to their stock, thus reducing their costs?

Mr. Jack: Flightpath Farmers are flying high with their ideas this afternoon. Of course, we welcome ideas to reduce the costs of the production of foodstuffs. Much of our research and development effort is directed at just that point. I think that my hon. Friend has raised the issue with my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I can assure him that it will be looked into very carefully.

Animal Health

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on how she expects deregulation to improve animal health.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): Deregulation, prudently and carefully applied, will improve the position of the livestock industry while protecting animal health and welfare.

Mr. Prentice: Does the Minister accept that BSE, with all its appalling consequences, would never have happened were it not for deregulation of the meat rendering industry? Does he agree that there is a close connection between deregulation and threats to animal and, indeed, human health?

Mr. Soames: No, on neither of those two points do I agree. The purpose of the deregulation initiative is to question, rightly, the justification for every regulation. The Government's intention at all times is to protect human and animal health, to protect animal welfare and to safeguard taxpayers' money. We will do nothing to compromise either human health or animal welfare.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the regulation of pig farmers, which will result in the


phasing out of tethers and dry sow stalls, will put them at a commercial disadvantage compared with their com-petitors on the continent? Will his Department consider ways of helping them when they are faced with significant reinvestment? If there is no aid, we will see a decline in the British pig market and an increase in the importation of pigmeat.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend speaks from a position of considerable knowledge, having more pig farmers in his constituency than any other hon. Member, so we treat what he says with considerable respect. As he knows, aid will not be available for the transition period. However, I can assure him that animal welfare remains extremely important in this country, as he will realise; it adds greatly to the selling power of British goods, and it is wrong to think otherwise. The people of Britain attach great importance to it. I assure my hon. Friend that we will not introduce unilaterally any new measures that would be to the economic detriment of our producers.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that the greatest contribution that could be made to the welfare of sheep in this country would be the reintroduction of compulsory sheep dipping? Is he aware that there is a terrible incidence of sheep scab affecting potentially about 1 million sheep in my constituency as a result of the absence of compulsory dipping?

Mr. Soames: The hon. and learned Gentleman is at odds in his argument. When there were compulsory controls, sheep scab was never properly under control. Now that the regulations have been abandoned, there is still exactly the same remedy as there always was for controlling sheep scab, which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well, is to dip his sheep, and farmers should do so.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement about access to the environmentally sensitive areas of West Penwith, Somerset, lakes and moors, the South Downs, the Pennines, the Dales and the Broads and the payment farmers will receive in return for such public access.

Mr. Jack: New arrangements launched on 9 February for these ESAs will make available £274 per mile for approved routes.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that it is welcome that there is to be extra public access both to those areas and to areas that are covered by country stewardship schemes, but how are the general public to find out which areas they are now entitled to go into?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Ramblers Association and, apart from walking "them thar hills", he and his colleagues have an important function in ensuring that the message about extra access to environmentally sensitive areas is made available to walkers. We will also be making the information available to local authorities, tourist information centres and local libraries. We will try to ensure that farms are properly signposted so that walkers will know where the new and excellent facility is available.

Mr. David Nicholson: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about this initiative, but is he aware that it has been fairly difficult in recent weeks for anyone to have access to the Somerset moors and levels because they have been flooded by up to 8 or 10 ft in some areas? While that may be good news for birds, it is pretty bad news for farmers. Will he do all that he can to put pressure on the National Rivers Authority to improve its pumping and dredging activities?

Mr. Jack: I am aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention. I will look into the point about the NRA and see precisely what progress has been made about the pumping arrangements. He will appreciate that ensuring that there is a proper and adequate water level on a more permanent basis is central to improving the environmental area of the Somerset levels.

Agricultural Earnings

Ms Corston: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest available figure for the average weekly earnings of agricultural workers in the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The figure is £217.18 per week.

Ms Corston: Even though farm workers earn only 70 per cent. of the average industrial wage, does the Minister agree that the poverty of farm workers will be made worse if the agricultural wages board is not committed to set a whole range of statutory rights, including minimum rates of pay, overtime rates, sick pay schemes, holiday schemes and maximum rents for agricultural tied cottages? Will the right hon. Lady undertake to retain the wages board in its present form?

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Lady will know that the agricultural wages board is subject to a review every five years, and that this time we are taking the opportunity to review the workings of the board. She will also know that we have had a large response to consultations, with some 4,000 responses in all. The vast majority of those were in favour of the retention of the board. The complications that the hon. Lady outlines are among the issues that my right hon. Friends and I will be taking into account, and I hope to make an announcement soon.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: In spite of her answer, does my right hon. Friend recognise that the good arguments that have been used for the abolition of all the other statutory wages boards apply equally to the agricultural wages board? Does she agree that, given a free market, it is more than likely that the average level of wages would rise? She should not be subsumed by the siren voices of those who would like their negotiations to be carried out for them.

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is quite right that the Government in general believe that all barriers to employment should be removed, and that statutory wage controls distort wage and employment levels and destroy jobs. However, he would be the first to recognise the quite overwhelming support among employers and employees in the agriculture industry for the retention of the board. It is interesting to note that the Tenant Farmers Association


supports the abolition, and so do some individual National Farmers Union commodity committees, in particular the potato committee.

Dr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that, even with yesterday's increase, which comes into operation in June, the average hourly pay of farm workers—excluding overtime, but including bonuses—will still be less than three quarters of the industrial average? Will she take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) that it will not be sufficient to retain the boards, but that it is crucial that she retains all the legislation that provides minimum rates of pay at every level and a statutory right to holidays and to holiday and sick pay?

Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the wages announced yesterday were set by the board, with representation from both sides of the industry. I am sure that he is also aware that the wages of agricultural workers fall below the average wage; but so do those of other groups—people in a number of manufacturing sectors, distribution, repairs, hotels and catering, construction, transport and communication.

Equines

Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on minimum residue limits of veterinary products in equines.

Mr. Soames: Under Council regulations, maximum residue limits must be established by 1996 for active ingredients in veterinary medicines used in food-producing species, including horses. That does not apply if a horse is not destined for human consumption.

Mr. Heald: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Does he agree that is important that ponies should be protected, and would he care to comment further on the position concerning ponies and their owners?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That matter is dear to the hearts of many of our fellow citizens. I can assure him that the regulations that we have in place to ensure that ponies are not exported for slaughter or, indeed, that any horses are not exported for immediate slaughter are extremely important to us. We retain them at a very high level of vigilance. Our minimum value system, as everyone knows, has served us extremely well and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Food Handling

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the budget of her Department is devoted to the promotion of the safe handling of food.

Mr. Soames: A large proportion of the work of the Food Safety Directorate, which accounts for about one third of staff resources in the core department, is devoted to the promotion of food safety, including the safe handling of food.

Mr. Griffiths: I wonder whether the Minister would tell us when he last had the rather humble gastronomic experience of eating a sandwich from a store such as Tesco, and whether, when eating it, he was reading the

Which? report on the safety of eating such sandwiches, because he will know that one in six are deemed to be dangerous to public health. Will he therefore take steps to ensure that all pre-packed sandwiches have a clear sell-by date on them and that more money is made available for the training of all staff who have to handle and sell sandwiches?

Mr. Soames: I would hazard a guess that I eat more Tesco sandwiches than the hon. Gentleman or, for that matter, many other hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Gentleman's assertion was fatuous. The standards in the British food industry are probably the highest in any country. Our hygiene training is the envy of the world and all the regulations on food safety in this country render our consumers the best protected, in the safest environment, in any country in Europe.

Mr. Brazier: Following that robust answer, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that we must resist pressure from the Opposition for yet more regulation? Surely the British people want a sensible balance to be struck between food safety and a reasonable regulatory burden so that British jobs are not destroyed throughout the food chain.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The food industry, together with pharmaceuticals, aerospace and a number of others, is one of the best in Great Britain. My hon. Friend is correct. Any additional regulatory burden would do no good. The food industry depends on high standards of hygiene for its great success. Everything that my hon. Friend says is true. We believe that we have exactly the right balance, and we should continue to strike that balance.

Mr. Martyn Jones: In spite of the Minister's reply and his defence of the British food industry, there has been a huge increase in cases of salmonella food poisoning in the past few years. Given that all the evidence that has been given to the Agriculture Select Committee suggests that the Government's slaughter policy has had no effect in preventing that increase in salmonella food poisoning, will he now accept that the £1,048,000 that has been wasted on compensation for slaughtered flocks would have been best spent on educating food handlers in the use of eggs?

Mr. Soames: No, I do not believe that. The Government policy on all those matters has been driven by our professional independent advisory committees. The salmonella policy is to provide all necessary controls consistent with the need to protect public health.
The hon. Gentleman must understand that what makes food safe is not regulation but high standards and the food industry's determination to provide consumers with wholesome, safe food. That is precisely what they get.

Equine Slaughter

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many equines were slaughtered in the United Kingdom in the past year; how many of those equines were slaughtered for consumption (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Soames: Seven slaughterhouses in the United Kingdom are licensed to slaughter horses. Last yeas, they handled some 4,000 equines for human consumption.
Data are not kept on the destination of the meat, but, so far as the Department is aware, the vast majority of the meat produced was exported.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that if foreigners must eat our horses, they should accept them slaughtered rather than transported alive? Is not that a much more humane way for horsemeat to be sent abroad? Does he agree that this country has no tradition of eating horses and that our history, culture and fame are built on the back of horses? Will he promise that, like me, he will never eat a horse as long as he lives?

Mr. Soames: I feel that the House should know that I have never, and will never, eat a horse. My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of the interests of horses. Although eating horses is alien to the British people, we must acknowledge that some of our friends within the excellent single market to which we belong have strange habits and wish to eat horses. We do not permit the export of horses for slaughter; they are slaughtered in this country and exported on the hook. The minimum value system has served this country well and we will continue to stick to it, come what may.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that, every year, this country exports 1.8 million live animals, often in conditions of great cruelty? Can he not begin to stop that cruelty by banning the export of live calves, which are exported from this country at an early age, mainly to Holland, and raised in a process that is banned here?

Mr. Soames: Even the tortured mind of the Opposition must know the difference between a calf and a horse. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is possible for animals to be transported in a humane and decent fashion. We seek to export our welfare standards for animals to the rest of Europe. Whenever we have an opportunity to prosecute those who break the rules, we do so with great vigour.

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend knows that I am privileged to represent the centre of the British bloodstock industry around Newmarket. Despite the assurances that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), does he accept that no measures relating to equines for human consumption should be allowed to impinge on the effective running of the stud farming industry, in which Britain is, and always will be, pre-eminent?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is right. He represents with great distinction the headquarters of the British racing industry—another industry in which Britain leads the world—and is fully aware that the Jockey Club issues licences for the export of horses. Those are perfectly normal licences, issued in the everyday conduct of the business of horses going abroad for sporting purposes, such as polo or racing. We are entirely satisfied with our minimum value system and I am happy to give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance that he seeks.

Mr. Morley: The Minister will be aware that, sadly, New Forest ponies often supply much of the horsemeat trade. However, is he aware that, due to falling prices for horsemeat, there is a worrying new trade in supplying New Forest ponies for laboratory research, particularly to the

Glasgow university veterinary school? I understand from the Home Office that some of those ponies arrive there in poor condition due to poor handling and transportation. The Home Office says that it is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Will the Minister assure the House that action will be taken to ensure that the highest standards are maintained?

Mr. Soames: With the usual admirable co-operation for which the Government are rightly famed, I have not been told of that case. However, if the hon. Gentleman chooses to make those details available to me, I will look at them. The minimum value system—the system which protects those animals that are most vulnerable, such as the Shetland and other small ponies—really does work. It has stood us in good stead and we will stick to it.
As to the other point, the hon. Gentleman knows that it is perfectly possible to transport animals decently. If they are not transported decently, the matter should be looked into with all the vigour that the law can command.

Food Labelling

Dr. Wright: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on food labelling.

Mr. Soames: Current activities on food labelling include the consolidation of the existing regulations, the introduction of a standard format for nutrition labelling and discussions on several issues in the European Union.

Dr. Wright: I am grateful to the Minister. Is he aware that there is widespread public support for a clear and effective food labelling scheme which covers not just what is in the food that people eat but how it is produced—in particular, whether it is produced by gene technology, including human genes, and whether it is a cruelty-free product in terms of animal welfare? Will the Minister introduce a clear scheme of that kind and does he understand that it is his job to introduce not just measures that the food industry will permit but measures that the consumer wants?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is a little wide of the mark. My first job is to protect the interests of the consumer, and we do that with determination and vigour. The hon. Gentleman is a former chairman of a community health council and therefore takes an interest in those matters.
The question of genetically modified organisms is fiendishly complicated and one on which we asked our specialist advisers—the Polkinhorne committee and the Food Advisory Committee—to give us the advice that, in every instance, we have taken. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that clear, concise labelling that gives all the information that people need to make an informed choice is essential and we will ensure that that is just what they get.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that we men have to pay a price for splendid food labelling? Has my hon. Friend shopped at a supermarket recently and had to fight his way past the women who are studying the ingredients of foods and their sell-by dates?

Mr. Soames: No, I have not. I have always found the British public extraordinarily trusting, in that they know


perfectly well that the food on offer in our stores is of a very high character and if it is there to be sold it will be sold because it is good, safe, wholesome, nutritious and, I hope, British food.

Salmon Farming

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions she has had with her European Community counterparts in respect of the salmon farming industry.

Mr. Jack: I and my hon. Friend the Scottish Minister with responsibility for agriculture and the environment discussed the problems of the farmed salmon sector with colleagues at the Council of EU Fisheries Ministers in December 1993.

Mr. Macdonald: Now that the Scottish industry has presented to the European Commission the Ernst and Young report, which provides hard evidence of dumping and the unfair subsidies that are given to the Norwegian industry, will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will make a formal request to the Commission to press for a proper investigation of that evidence before the Scottish industry is absolutely decimated by the dumping?

Mr. Jack: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the difficult situation in which Scottish salmon farmers find themselves, but the evidence of dumping in the report presented to the Commission was based on information from as long ago as 1991.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right: there has been a subsequent report from Ernst and Young, dealing with Norwegian state aid. It is now up to the Commission to follow up that matter. However, I think that it is more relevant to follow up the excellent work done by my hon. Friend the Scottish Minister in his meeting with the Norwegians on 18 February when co-operation between Norway and Scotland was discussed.

Mr. Bill Walker: In those discussions, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that Norway hopes to become a member of the European Union? If it does, it must be made to understand that it cannot be a member of the Union if it is giving unfair subsidies to an industry that is in direct competition with Scottish produce. Should not it be made to understand that now, before it joins?

Mr. Jack: Having spent 130 hours in the past three weeks in Brussels dealing with enlargement negotiations, I am sure that Norway has no doubt about its obligations should it become a member of the European Union. I can assure my hon. Friend that the matters that lie at the heart of his question have been drawn to the attention of Norway and that the Commission is aware of them. It is important to realise that good co-operation between the Norwegian and Scottish industries is the best way out of the current problems.

Mr. William Ross: During his discussions with other member states, did the hon. Gentleman give consideration to the problems created by salmon cages, whereby increased numbers of parasites affect other fish such as sea trout? Will he consider the problems related to the salmon farm off the coast at Lame, which is situated in the open sea?

Mr. Jack: I am aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. One of the problems in relation to the extra output of farmed salmon and trout relates to the ability to overcome some of the water-born diseases. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me with further information on the specific point that he mentioned, I will look into it.

Animal Diseases

Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on progress on the steps taken to prevent the spread of animal diseases from abroad.

Mr. Soames: The Government take animal health very seriously and have announced newly strengthened measures to monitor Imports of live animals to ensure that our high animal health status is safeguarded.

Dame Jill Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern in Birmingham about a recent consignment of sheep into our city, some of which were diseased? Will he confirm that he will look into that issue as a matter of great urgency?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to comment on that important matter, which I know has aroused concern in Birmingham and elsewhere. There have been certification and welfare problems with those consignments, which our chief vet has taken up with the chief vets of the countries involved. We have expressed our concern over a number of welfare issues, in particular the absence of journey plans. Safeguarding the welfare of the animals is a high priority and I assure my hon. Friend that we have drawn the matter to the attention of the Polish authorities and, where appropriate, the Belgian authorities. My hon. Friend need have no fear—we will continue to protect with all the vigour at our command the high animal health status of this country.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that what he has said will be of little consolation to my constituent who has had to have the whole of his herd confined because a beast was imported from Poland, apparently through Germany, and no checks were made? The affect on animal health in this country was not only immediate, but is likely to lead to the bankruptcy of the farmer involved. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they will draw the matter to the attention of the Polish authorities. What is the Minister doing to protect British farmers and British goods?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady, who has debated such matters with me on many occasions, knows perfectly well that if she gave us details of the individual case we should be happy to look into it. All the farmers in Britain rightly urge on us the absolute necessity to maintain our high animal health status within the complexities of the single market. I assure the hon. Lady and all those farmers that we shall do that by ensuring that all the certification is correct and that all the checks are done where they should be done, and by vigorous policing at this and other ends.

Farm Incomes

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement about the trend in farm incomes over the past year.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Over the past two years, farm incomes have shown a significant recovery in real terms. That is welcome news and I hope that it will be recognised as such.

Mr. Ainsworth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does she accept that that is indeed welcome news to farmers in my constituency of East Surrey? Does she further accept that low inflation and low interest rates provide the ideal circumstances to allow the farming industry, like every other industry, to succeed?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is correct. The substantial fall in interest rates, which is a direct result of Government policy, has made an important contribution to the increase. As a result, farmers' interest payment; have fallen by £240 million in the past year.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that the common agricultural policy costs every family in Britain £28 a week and that the set-aside scheme has gone up by 28 per cent., which has increased farm incomes? Why cannot the farm workers receive a good proportion of that, instead of being given only 1.5 per cent?

Mrs. Shephard: As I think I have told the hon. Gentleman before, I welcome him to the fold of prudent spenders. I am delighted that he supports the Government's attempts to reduce the cost of the common agricultural policy. The hon. Gentleman must also take pleasure from the fact that the recent wage rises for agricultural workers were agreed by both sides of the industry, as I have already told the House.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, rather than using organophosphorous dips, as suggested in the answer to Question 3, a simple injection of Ivomec, which controls scab, lungworm and roundworm, would improve the income of sheep farmers?

Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend that Ivomec makes a suitable alternative to OP dips. She will know of the trouble to which we have gone to make the use of such dips safe for those who are obliged to use them.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that qualified majority voting in the European Union should be considered strictly on its merits? Is not it right to argue

robustly for a more democratic system and to fight our corner, instead of throwing away Britain's hand as the Opposition parties certainly would?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are strongly committed to enlargement of the Community and also to the long-term success of the European Union, but, to be successful, the countries of the Community must be responsive to the individuals and peoples in that Community.
As I told the House on Tuesday, I believe that we are right to argue vigorously for principles that are important both for Britain and for Europe's future, and that is what we are doing. We need a balanced decision that safeguards the rights of minorities. When we entered the Community, representatives of 30 per cent. of its population could be voted down: now the figure is 40 per cent. An automatic and unqualified extension to 27 would perpetuate that trend, and I believe that it should be checked now. In 1996, we need a proper, wholesale reform of the system.

Mr. John Smith: On that subject—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) to order.

Mr. John Smith: On that subject, can the Prime Minister explain why there is such confusion—as revealed in the press this morning—over the Government's policy on Europe? Is not it because the Prime Minister one day seeks to appease the anti-European faction in his party and on the succeeding day seeks to reassure the pro-European faction? Why is he, as usual, trying to face both ways?

The Prime Minister: If anyone had the faintest idea where the right hon. and learned Gentleman stands on this issue, he might be entitled to ask that—perhaps he will tell us.
It is absurd to suggest that arguing for better decision making in Europe, which is what I seek, is anything other than the right way to approach the negotiations. It is right to stand up for the principles that we think are correct. It is not thought anti-European when the Italians argue their case on milk quotas or when the French hold up the enlargement of the number of seats in the European Parliament for their interests. We are arguing for points of principle that we consider of importance, and we will continue to do so.

Mr. John Smith: Does not the Prime Minister realise that it cannot be responsible to put at risk the enlargement of the European Community by a damaging dispute, which is at most about four votes out of 90? Why does the Prime Minister not realise that he is putting at risk the accession of four countries that are friends of Britain and are net contributors to the budget?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the British Government were foremost in creating the opportunities for those countries to enter the Community and we are strong supporters of their entry. That does not mean that we must concede each and every aspect of the allied negotiations to ensure enlargement. I said on Tuesday, and I repeat now, that there is time to resolve qualified majority voting without any delay to enlargement. In Brussels, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary described several possible


avenues to a solution. So long as the political will is there, on the part of others as well as of the United Kingdom, the matter can be settled within a matter of days.

Mr. John Smith: Is not the truth of this whole affair that the right hon. Gentleman is more concerned to protect himself and his position from attacks within his own party than to fight for Britain's real and lasting interests in the European Union?

The Prime Minister: That is unworthy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If that had been remotely true, I should not have stuck, as I did, to the importance of carrying the Maastricht treaty through the House despite the twists and turns of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has demonstrated yet again that the moment something from Europe, whatever it may be, is put to him, he concedes. He has conceded the ending of our national veto, a minimum wage costing £20 billion, a 35-hour week costing £20 billion and every big spending plan to come out of Brussels. Europe cannot afford that, and Britain could not afford the sort of policies that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would accept.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: In view of my right hon. Friend's recent and very welcome statement in favour of sport in schools, may I commend to him a report called "A Charter for Sport in Schools", which was launched this morning and which links sport firmly into the state of the health of the nation? May I also draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that, for the first time, this links together national sporting bodies, teacher associations and the medical profession? Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to give the report all possible support?

Mr. Skinner: You can hit that one for six.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for his advice.
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of sport in schools, not least because not only is it a natural part of growing up for most youngsters but it instils a love of sport in people which they will carry with them for the rest of their lives.

Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Ms Corston: On both 10 November 1992 and 4 February 1993, the Prime Minister told the House that claiming public interest immunity was a ministerial obligation which could not be waived. In view of today's statement by the Attorney-General that Ministers have a discretion whether to claim such immunity, will the Prime Minister now retract his statements?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Lady may have been misled by some lunch-time news reports, supplemented by comments by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Let me read to the House what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in his opening statement to the inquiry this morning. I quote:
Where documents or information fall into a class that has been recognised by the courts as attracting public interest immunity, the relevant Minister is under a duty to make a claim.

Mr. Mans: Given that unemployment is falling faster in this country than in any other European Union nation, is not the main lesson that other member nations can learn from us that deregulation of the market and the reduction of social costs encourage investment and create extra jobs?

The Prime Minister: I believe that that can be seen, not just in the position between the United Kingdom and other European nations but in the position between Europe as a whole and Japan, the United States or the Pacific basin. There is absolutely no doubt that a deregulated economy is likely to create more jobs and that an economy that does not pile too many social costs on employers is likely to have a higher proportion of its work force in proper work.

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jones: Does the Prime Minister know that in my constituency the production of the corporate jet aircraft is in danger of being transferred, lock, stock and barrel, to an American production line? More than 900 highly skilled and valuable jobs to Wales in my constituency are at risk. What intervention will he make and what guarantee can he give? May I show him a model of the aircraft to remind him that it is the best of its kind in the world? If he believes in British manufacturing, what will he do to help the workers in my constituency?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the specific question that he raises this afternoon. I appreciate his efforts to keep those jobs in his constituency. I share that concern and so do the Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has pledged the full support of the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will shortly be visiting the parent company in the United States. In recent years, Wales has made tremendous achievements in attracting jobs. In the past decade, it has secured more than 11,000 inward investment projects guaranteeing 110,000 jobs. It is an excellent haven for inward investment and jobs and we will do all that we can to help retain those.

Mrs. Angela Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ultimate guarantee of Britain's national interest and sovereignty is the national veto, which the Liberal and Labour parties would abandon in their desire to allow Brussels to rule us?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree that the national veto, which is, of course, a separate matter from qualified majority voting, which we have been discussing, is an important matter. It has been conceded by the leader of the Liberal Democratic party and the Leader of the Opposition. He shakes his head, but he still has not read the socialist manifesto that he signed up to without reading and to which he is bound.

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Michie: On reflection, is the Prime Minister still not prepared to listen to the 1 million people who voted no


to the Government's proposals for Scotland's water? Does he accept that the folk of Strathclyde sent a clear, dignified, civilised and democratic message not worthy of an abusive response and that his own Tory councillors in Scotland now advise that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland should take back the proposals and think again? If the Prime Minister wants his party to survive in Scotland, he should think again.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will, I think, understand that neither the referendum nor the opinion poll was particularly relevant because neither suggested any alternative structure for the industry. The status quo is obviously not an option, because Strathclyde will not exist as a local authority. There is, therefore, a need for an alternative and it is clearly nonsense to think that each of the new single-tier local authorities could be a separate individual water authority. For that reason, I said that the referendum was an expensive stunt and I still believe it to have been so.

European Court

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the extent to which European Court decisions are extending the powers of the European Union.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. It is important that the Court does not extend its

powers beyond those established in the treaty. We expect it to use its jurisdiction responsibly and impartially to uphold the rule of law in the Community. We need it to ensure that all member states play by the rules.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I appreciate that answer very much. Is not it worrying that the Commission is regularly using the Court as a means of stretching and extending EC powers, as we have seen recently on social legislation? Will my right hon. Friend find out from the Commission why on earth it announced last night that it will take action against us under the broadcasting directive, with particular reference to our national licensing system for overseas satellite stations? Should not we have less action and more unity of purpose to try to solve problems, instead of these foolish legal actions?

The Prime Minister: I gather that there is a complex interaction in what is happening. The Commission has announced that it is taking us to the European Court of Justice over the implementation of the broadcasting directive. The point at issue is that the Commission wants licensing to be organised in one way, while we think that it is best done in another. We have defended our position robustly since the opening of infraction proceedings and will continue to do so. I do not believe that the Commission is seeking to spread its activities through the actions of the Court in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, and it would certainly need to operate within the treaty rights that it has been given.

Business of the House

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam Speaker. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 28 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
TUESDAY 29 MARCH—Motion on the Railways (Rateable Values) (Amendment) order.
Motion from the Committee of Selection on the Membership of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs.
WEDNESDAY 30 MARCH—Opposition Day (8th allotted day).
There will be a debate described as "Pension transfers and the need for direct regulation of the private pensions sector", on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 31 MARCH—Debates on the Adjournment.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the business for the first week back after the Easter Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY 12 APRIL.—Progress on remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
WEDNESDAY 13 APRIL—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
THURSDAY 14 APRIL—Opposition Day (9th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, of which the subject is to be announced.
FRIDAY 15 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday 30 March to consider European Community document No. 6703/88 relating to equal pay and the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the burden of proof in the area of equal pay and equal treatment for women and men.

[Wednesday 30 March:

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 6703/88, Burden of Proof (Equal opportunities). Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 43-xxxiv (1987–88), HC 15-iv (1988–89), HC 15-xxv (1988–89), HC 79-i (1992–93) and HC 48-v (1993–94).]

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement, and in particular for giving us some indication of what he has in mind for the week after the recess.
Will the Leader of the House find time for an early statement from the Secretary of State for Transport about the new timetable that he seems to have announced for the privatisation of British Rail? Is the Lord President aware that, at Asea Brown Boveri in Derby, 700 job losses were announced today, not because the company is uncompetitive or because we do not need new rolling stock, but because, as a direct result of the continued shambles of rail privatisation, there are no orders for which to compete? We would like an early statement from the Secretary of State on what is happening in that regard.
Will the Lord President also find time for a debate on the increase in prescription charges? He may recall that this year they amount to yet another tax on the sick, as they have gone up by five or six times the rate of inflation. In

those circumstances, is not the least that we can expect that the Secretary of State for Health comes to the House to account for such a huge increase?
Finally, as the Attorney-General is now giving statements to the press about his evidence to the Scott inquiry, will the Lord President press him to reconsider his refusal to make a statement to the House?

Mr. Newton: It seems to me that, at a time when the Attorney-General is, or can only recently have finished, giving evidence today—I understand that he is expected to give further evidence tomorrow to the inquiry—the last of the right hon. Lady's questions is wholly inappropriate.
On the right hon. Lady's first question, I cannot make an immediate promise about statements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but I am sure that the whole House would wish to express its regret at redundancies, whether they are in Derbyshire or in any other part of the United Kingdom. I will of course bring her comments to my right hon. Friend's attention.
I cannot promise a debate on prescription charges. No doubt there will be opportunities to raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I must say that I find it difficult to understand what point the right hon. Lady would make, given that she would effectively be seeking to deny the national health service money that could be spent on patient treatment, new hospitals and the like, at a time when she is constantly calling for more.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend provide time in the near future for the House to discuss the system of law-making in the European Community? Is he aware that there is widespread support for the Government's patriotic and constitutional attitude to voting in the Community, and rising concern about another matter? In 1992, the Community passed 1,526 regulations and 122 directives; in each case, there was no proper examination of that ill-considered and intrusive flood of foreign legislation.

Mr. Newton: I have three comments to make. First, we have well-established arrangements in the House for scrutiny of much of this material—although, given what he has said, I acknowledge that my hon. Friend probably does not think them sufficiently satisfactory. Secondly, the Government's increasingly successful emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity should reduce that flow, and perhaps even reverse it in some respects. Thirdly, my hon. Friend will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the Community's mechanisms generally in response to a question at Prime Minister's Question Time.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The notice of our business after Easter is extremely welcome. I am especially pleased that the Leader of the House has found time to allow three days for the Report stage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. He will be aware, however, that crucial issues are involved in that Report stage—some of them subject to a free vote, on a non-party line basis. What steps is he taking to make the order of consideration of clauses available to the House as soon as possible, so that hon. Members can make their dispositions accordingly?

Mr. Newton: Part of that question is really for you, Madam Speaker. There is, however, an established order of


discussion in the ordinary course of events: Government new clauses come first, followed by other new clauses, and so on. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with that procedure, but my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be glad to give him any help we can.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. One sometimes feels in this job that there are more brickbats than plaudits.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to let us have a debate on the magnifying, exponential curve of regulations that arrive not just from Europe but from this country, and their utter absurdity and impropriety if we believe in a free society?

Mr. Newton: In addition to what I said a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) about European matters, let me draw the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) to the major effort being led by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, under the general heading of deregulation. Given that a Bill on the subject is currently being considered, there will certainly be opportunities for discussion in due course.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May we have a statement at senior level—not just from junior Scottish Office Ministers—about what has happened in Strathclyde? Will the Leader of the House take it from me, with my particular political history, that the matter raises very serious problems for the Union between England and Scotland, exceeding those simply connected with water? If it is seen that no notice is taken of the issue, and it is dismissed from—if I may say so—a rather haughty position, there will be real and lasting trouble in Scotland.

Mr. Newton: Let me make two points. First, the Local Government (Etc.) (Scotland) Bill is still in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman is a member of that Committee; secondly, the hon. Gentleman has had a statement—or, at least, a comment—within the past quarter of an hour from a very senior figure indeed.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we debate foreign affairs far too rarely in this House? Could not Tuesday's business be changed? Instead of debating what he has announced, could we have a debate on the Balkans?

Mr. Newton: I recognise and respect my hon. Friend's reasons for pressing me again on the matter, but there are a quite of number of people to whom it is important that we should proceed with the establishment of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that right hon. and hon. Members are being told that tomorrow the Government will be laying an amendment to the Service Pensions Order that will affect war pensions and war widows' pensions? Is he further aware that it is the Government's intention, as stated by the Minister responsible for war pensions in another place, to make the order effective on Monday next week—28 March—leaving only two non-parliamentary days, Saturday and Sunday, in between? Would that not be grossly contemptuous of this House?

Mr. Newton: I do not believe that my right hon. Friend would behave in a way that was grossly contemptuous of the House. I understand that he is following established procedures for amending war pension provisions, but I shall bring the right hon. Gentleman's comments to his attention.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is my right hon. Friend aware that businesses in Kent are under great threat both from the flood of foreign apples and other fruit, which is damaging Kent's fruit industry, and from the licensed trade's difficulties with differential tariffs on drink? Will he allow a discussion of those matters in the House, as they are of great concern to the people of Kent?

Mr. Newton: I take note of my hon. Friend's comments. As a Member of Parliament representing the county across the Thames, I can say that apple growers in Essex might also express some concern. I cannot immediately promise a debate, but there will be an opportunity to comment on agricultural matters at least during the rest of today's proceedings.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House provide time next week for a debate on transport so that we could incorporate a discussion on early-day motion 939, on the takeover of Yorkshire Rider by Badgerline?
[That this House notes the proposed £38 million buy-out of Yorkshire Rider bus company by Badgerline; further notes that Yorkshire Rider is 49 per cent. owned by the employees who have not been consulted in the deal; is concerned at the paucity of the offer bearing in mind Yorkshire Rider's £86 million turnover and £10 million of assets; recognises that the success of Yorkshire Rider in maintaining a viable network in West Yorkshire is because of sacrifices over a number of years by the workforce including pay cuts; is concerned at reports of profits on the deal for directors of up to £3.8 million each; and calls on the Secretary of State for Transport and the President of the Board of Trade to intervene to protect the interests of the travelling public in West Yorkshire.]
On the face of it, that takeover has been brought about because the directors received very generous contributions for agreeing to the takeover. It places in jeopardy the public services built up by Yorkshire Rider, which is 49 per cent. owned by the workers who provide the Yorkshire Rider service but who have not been consulted on that takeover. Surely we could debate the involvement of the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Transport in the matter, which could seriously jeopardise transport in west Yorkshire.

Mr. Newton: I understand that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade may be required to make a decision on that takeover under his merger control powers, in the light of advice from the Director General of Fair Trading. I think the hon. Gentleman will understand that, under those circumstances, it would not be appropriate at present for me or the President of the Board of Trade to comment.

Sir Richard Body: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade cannot come into effect until more than 100 Parliaments ratify the treaty? Although the House will not be one of those 100 or more, for reasons of which my right hon. Friend will be aware,


does he not agree that we should none the less have the opportunity to debate some of the implications of the Uruguay round, particularly in view of the reservations and doubts expressed by certain industries in this country?

Mr. Newton: I take note of my hon. Friend's request, although I cannot immediately give an undertaking of a debate at a particular time.

Mr. David Trimble: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about his role in the planning of the imminent visit to the United Kingdom by the President of the Republic of Ireland? The Secretary of State describes it as a private visit, but Mrs. Robinson will be carrying out public engagements and, in particular, will be entering my constituency as if she were the President of it and the rest of Northern Ireland. She will be acting in a manner that is discourteous to Her Majesty the Queen, and as if the constitutional claim in the Irish constitution were a reality. That has been connived at by the Secretary of State and organised by persons who draw their income from the British taxpayer. I wonder what will be done about such disloyal conduct.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me readily to accept the sort of language that he has used, even though it might have been in order. I shall simply bring his comments to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Can my right hon. Friend find time during the next two parliamentary weeks to debate early-day motion 910, entitled. "Lady Thatcher's visit to Chile", tabled by 44 left-wing Labour Members of Parliament? It is full of historical falsehoods and vile and malign sentiments towards the Government and people of Chile, which is a good friend and ally.
[That this House is appalled that in her visit to Chile Lady Thatcher is meeting representatives of the former military junta, including a reported meeting with General Pinochet; recalls that the junta led to the death or disappearance of over 50,000 people and that one million were forced into exile; and further recalls that the Government of Lady Thatcher supplied arms to Chile and used their military support for the Falklands war and that it endorsed the ruinous monetarist economic strategy that destroyed Chile's public services and impoverished millions.]
When considering that motion, will my right hon. Friend take note of the two amendments that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) tabled to try to set the record straight, not least about the Falklands war and other related matters?

Mr. Newton: As always, I shall take note of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members. Lady Thatcher's visit to Chile was a private visit, and we enjoy excellent relations with that country.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at some time next week to make a statement to the House on the fire service? Is he aware that much concern has been expressed by communities and by

industry about the limitations imposed on local fire authorities when carrying out their obligations and responsibilities for proper and adequate fire cover?

Mr. Newton: The House may be seeing a fair amount of my right hon. and learned Friend during the next few days, because of the business that I have announced, although I accept that we will not be debating the fire service. However, I shall bring that question to his attention.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Following the point made by hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), can we use the impasse over 23/27 to start a very important debate in Europe about how Europe is governed, in particular; how we can constrain and redirect the powers of the Commission; how we can ensure subsidiarity so that laws that should be made by national Parliaments are made by national Parliaments; how we can ensure a system of legislative certainty so that we know, when we pass laws in this House, that they will not be overwhelmed by European institutions; and how we can deal with the democratic deficit in Europe, for example, this terrible system at the moment—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is not the occasion for a debate on European matters. I am sure that the Leader of the House has got the gist of the question. Am I right?

Mr. Marlow: Can I just finish?

Madam Speaker: No. I am in a position to ask the Leader of the House to answer one question only. He can therefore choose which of those questions he wishes to answer.

Mr. Newton.: If I might answer two questions, Madam Speaker, but the first would be yours. Yes, I had got the gist of my hon. Friend's questions. As to his message, I refer him to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. David Winnick: Since the Attorney-General had time yesterday to give interviews to the BBC and ITN before giving evidence to the Scott inquiry today, why did the Leader of the House not ensure that any such statements were made in the House, where we could question him? We well understand, however, that the Attorney-General does not want to be made the fall guy by the Cabinet for all the lying to Parliament and the rest that the Scott inquiry is looking into.

Mr. Newton.: Since the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends appear to be running in and out of the inquiry giving a running commentary on the proceedings in a way that I find distasteful and deplorable, I am not sure that I want to respond to his direct comments.

Mr. John Butcher: Can we have a debate on the interests of manufacturing industry, which is now in recovery but is distinguished from other forms of commercial activity by its capital-intensive nature? If we were to have a debate, could we discuss the one measure that would change the fortunes of small and medium-sized manufacturing businesses—the abolition of capital gains tax?

Mr. Newton.: As they say, that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.


As it happens, he will be here to answer questions during the first week back after the Easter recess, and I shall warn him of what is coming.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: rose—

Mr. Tony Banks: You' re in, sailor.

Mr. Faulds: No thanks to you; you are never off your feet. I am sorry, Madam Speaker.
When will the right hon. Gentleman afford the House the opportunity to debate the massive misjudgments of policy of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Governor of Hong Kong about the future relations between Hong Kong and China in the next two or three years, and the appalling effects these misunderstandings on the part of the Government will have on our relations with that immensely important country, China?

Mr. Newton: I have already said that the Foreign Secretary will be here to answer questions next Wednesday. The hon. Gentleman might care to put that question to him then—but I must make it clear that I do not accept his description of the efforts that the British Government are making to ensure the continuation and advance of democratic institutions in Hong Kong.

Mr. Gerald Malone: My right hon. Friend always has the interests of the whole House at heart, so I assume that to keep himself well briefed he has read the current issue of Tribune. May I refer him to an excellent article by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who suggests an ideal subject for debate on the Opposition day that is not yet full? The article is about economic policy and the Labour party's policy, and the hon. Gentleman simply says, "What is Labour going to do? Nobody knows." May I recommend that as a subject? At least the debate would be short.

Mr. Newton: I am duly grateful to my hon. Friend. I noticed that not a flicker passed across the face of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), but I hope that at least she has noted the suggestion.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: May I ask the Leader of the House to listen to the growing calls from both sides of the House for increased scrutiny of EC legislation? We do not have adequate scrutiny of matters such as the green paper on social policy, parental leave, part-time workers and now equal pay. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision to debate all that in Committee rather than on the Floor of the House, where issues of such great importance should properly be debated?

Mr. Newton: Of course I always consider representations, but I would not want to build up too many hopes in the hon. Lady's mind. When she talks about scrutiny of European documents, she might be on a stronger wicket if there was any evidence that the leader of her party read the documents that he signed.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for an important debate to show that council tax payers are much better off under Conservative than under Labour or Liberal councils? May we debate in particular Castle Point council's latest performance? That Conservative council has cut its council tax by 23 per cent., and at the same time tremendously increased services.

Mr. Newton: I would happily provide time for such a debate were I not somewhat fearful that it might excite demands for debates on all the other highly successful and economical Conservative councils all over the country.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate about the employment practices of multinational corporations such as SmithKline, which take over British companies such as Beecham and sell off part of their products? Without consultation, SmithKline has shut the factory at St. Helens, which has been there for 100 years, and thrown 600 workers on to the dole queues. Surely the House should debate such issues, especially when the company concerned increased its profits by 12 per cent. last year to £1.22 billion.

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I could draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone) pointed out, an Opposition day is, as it were, vacant at the moment. It has been striking that, ever since unemployment started to fall, the Opposition have shied away from discussing matters relating to employment.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange an early debate to examine the workings of the Race Relations Act 1976? That would give us an opportunity to understand how, with apparent legality, the London borough of Greenwich can place an advertisement in the press for a black social worker, and to contrast that with the howls of indignation that would come from the Opposition if a Conservative borough council advertised for a white social worker.

Mr. Newton: Probably thanks to the good offices of my hon. Friend, I have the advertisement here. There is something extraordinary about an advertisement that ends by saying that the council is operating an equal opportunities policy, yet is headed with a request for a black social worker. I should have thought that the relevant commission might wish to examine that.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), may we have a debate on early-day motion 927, which deals with Strathclyde's water referendum in which more than 1.2 million people participated, more than 97 per cent. of whom voted against the Government's proposals to transfer Scotland's water from elected local authorities to non-elected quangos?
[That this House congratulates Strathclyde Regional Council for holding a referendum on the future of water and sewerage services which was carried out by the Independent Electoral Reform Ballot Services Ltd. and which asked only the simple question 'Do you agree with the Government's proposal for the future of water and sewerage services-Yes or No?'; notes that 1,720,940 ballot papers were issued, 1,230,328 were returned, a rate of participation of 71.5 per cent., of whom an overwhelming 1,194,667 or 97.2 per cent. voted 'No' and only a meagre 33,956 or 2.8 per cent. voted 'Yes'; considers this to have been a fair and democratic ballot; and therefore calls upon the Government to scrap its plans to put appointed quangos in charge of Scotland's water and sewerage services.]
Will the Government listen for once to the voice of the people and ensure that Scotland's water remains the property of the people, accountable to the people, through the elected representatives of the people?

Mr. Newton: Taking that as a straightforward request for a debate and ignoring the surrounding rhetoric, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Local Government Etc. (Scotland) Bill, which deals with such matters, is currently in Committee, and will in due course return to be debated on the Floor of the House; so he will get his debate.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend give urgent attention to the need for a debate on sex education in schools? Is he aware of the grave concern felt by parents about the stories that have just emerged about explicit material being foisted on 10 and 11-year-olds? Does he agree that the House should be debating the fact that children's teaching should emphasise morals and family values?

Mr. Newton: I think that many other hon. Members will share the concern recently expressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. Clearly, he will be giving further consideration to the matter raised by my hon. Friend in light of the findings of the investigation currently being carried out by the local education authority in the area.

Mr. Max Madden: As the Home Office seems to be in a condition of shambolic siege over its handling of the hunger strike at Campsfield detention centre—with the refusal to allow me to visit the centre today now being described as "a mistake" and the refusal of Ministers to meet hon. Members to discuss the hunger strikes being denied altogether—will the Leader of the House persuade the Home Secretary to make a full statement about the hunger strikes on Monday, bearing in mind the fact that there is to be a demonstration outside the centre on Saturday, calling for it to be closed?

Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has yet had the opportunity to study the very long and full letter sent to him today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. If he has, I am sure he will accept that the description he gave is not a faithful account of what happened. The hon. Gentleman will know that the problem has been that the situation at Campsfield is rather difficult, with the detainees still refusing food. The officials who would have been involved in the hon. Gentleman's visit are heavily engaged in that situation, and my hon. Friend's judgment was simply that the visit should be postponed until next week.

Mr. Anthony Steen: May I first congratulate the Leader of the House on arranging debates on housing, which have allowed Conservative Members to draw attention to the number of vacant houses and flats in public ownership, which could be better used by those who live in overcrowded conditions?
Will he, however, arrange for a debate on the Palace of Westminster and the number of its rooms and offices in public ownership which are under-utilised or not used at all? May I draw his attention to five such rooms in Dean's Yard, which have been locked since Christmas and from

which hon. Members have been banned by the Serjeant at Arms, who said that any hon. Member using them would be accused of squatting?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has written to me to draw the matter to my attention, and I am making further inquiries.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we please have an early debate on the reported bizarre and wholly unacceptable suggestion that German troops should take part in the VE day parade? Is he aware that ex-service men such as myself and, I think, most of the British people, especially those who would like and are seeking reconciliation, would regard that as the worst possible way of achieving that reconciliation because it would stir up controversy and ill will where none was intended, and cause gross offence?

Mr. Newton: There seems to have been some misunderstanding about these matters in recent days, but I hope that things have now been made clear in a way that the hon. and learned Gentleman has found satisfactory.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate next week, or after the recess, on Post Office practices—particularly on the failure to consult communities such as that in Greenford before closing the facility that allowed people to collect their undelivered mail? Is he aware that, if the facility is closed, people will have to travel two miles to collect their mail, regardless of their age? That is a disgrace. The House should consider the unsatisfactory way in which the Post Office is operating in certain circumstances.

Mr. Newton: It is clear that my hon. Friend has already raised the matter with the Post Office. I am sure that the Post Office will look carefully at what he has said, and I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade sees what he has said as well.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Could the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement about the targets that she intends to put in place for the early treatment of cancer patients throughout the national health service? No targets are being set, and there is no information about why the NHS in its new trust form is not complying with the guidelines of the Council of Oncologists. After the debate last week, will the Leader of the House insist that some answers are given by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will respond as appropriate to the hon. Lady's representations. The hon. Lady will know, and I certainly know from my experience as the Minister of Health, of the efforts that have been made recently in improving screening for cancer in this country.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) for a debate on local council tax? That would give Labour Front-Bench Members the opportunity to explain why it is that, of all the district councils of west Kent, only Labour-controlled Gravesham borough council has not decreased its council tax, why the former Conservative-controlled Gravesham borough council had the lowest council tax last year, and why its council tax has increased to the fifth highest under Labour?

Mr. Newton: I shall try to organise a debate. I do not think that there is a mystery about the matter, as it is a well-established historical experience that that is what happens with Labour councils.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Is the Lord President aware of early-day motions 940 and 941 on leasehold reform, and the charter launched today by the Association of London Authorities on behalf of the 500,000 leaseholders in London who did not benefit from the recent legislation?
[That this House calls for the extension of leasehold enfranchisement to leaseholders paying higher ground rent, living over shops or with leases under 21 years; believes changes in legislation are needed to ensure valuations are based on market value of the freehold only and that this should apply to leasehold extensions; further believes that local authorities and housing associations should be able to offer advice and assistance to anyone considering exercising their right to leasehold enfranchisement; considers the Secretary of State should ensure that any code of conduct is based on the principle that the leaseholder should have easy redress against problems they face from freeholders and that that code of conduct is accessible and comprehensible to those without legal or technical knowledge; and demands that the Government provides adequate support to agencies such as the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service and should make leaseholders aware of their existing rights and simplify the process of enforcing such rights to make them more accessible to more people.]
Will the Lord President therefore make time next week to debate leasehold reform, and confirm the Government's commitment to move to commonhold, so that those leaseholders may benefit from it?

Mr. Newton: I must fall back on the time-honoured formula that the Government will bring forward legislation to introduce commonhold as soon as parliamentary time permits.

Mr. Keith Mans: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the subject of Lancashire Enterprise Ltd., the supposedly arm's-length company set up by the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, and the potential conflict of interest, in as much as I believe that the Labour leader of that council, who is partly responsible for a number of the contracts given to LEL, is a member of the LEL board and a shareholder in the company?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment off the cuff from the Dispatch Box on those points; I am sure that they will be examined in the proper quarters.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Does the Leader of the House accept that it is not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) who is concerned about the 700 redundancies at the ABB carriage works, but every one of a dwindling band of hon. Members who represent manufacturing constituencies? Because of the delay in franchising, the privatisation blight on railway orders will continue. Unless the Government allow a debate on the need for an emergency investment programme both in British Rail rolling stock and on the London Underground, they will find that, when they are in

a position to place orders, there will be no manufacturing industry left, and we will end up importing carriages from abroad.

Mr. Newton: I recognise why the hon. Gentleman has raised that question, but he will recognise that I have already responded to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), and I cannot add to what I said to her.

Mr. Gary Streeter: In view of the callous and brutal killing of my constituent Jonathan Roberts last year while trying to apprehend a shoplifter at Plymstock Broadway, and in view of the overwhelming outpouring of public concern at the five-year prison sentence which was passed on his killer— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the House next week to make a statement about the Court of Appeal's sentencing guidelines for manslaughter so that a clear message can be sent from the House that five years for that sort of brutal killing is not enough?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's view is undoubtedly widely shared, as was clear from the reaction in the House. My right hon. and learned Friend will be here to discuss criminal justice matters on no fewer than three of the days to which I referred in my business statement.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Leader of the House aware that we spent 80 hours, 48 minutes discussing the Coal Industry Bill in the House in all its stages leading up to Third Reading, including Committee and Report? We then spent 27 minutes on Third Reading itself. Should not there be a change in the procedures of the House so that the Third Reading of important items is dealt with separately? Hon. Members would then have time to reflect on the situation, and we could have a full and proper debate. That could apply to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which we are due to consider.

Mr. Newton: It is, of course, possible to make such arrangements, but it has usually been for the convenience of the House—it probably was for most of yesterday—to proceed in a way which allows flexibility, and which allows for time to be devoted to the discussion of specific points and amendments, and also the more general debate on Third Reading. That flexibility is generally valued by hon. Members of all parties.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend arrange time for a debate next week on transport in London? He will be aware of the considerable anxiety about red routes which are being imposed in London.
While it is of course recognised that parking on red routes is unfortunate, will my right hon. Friend also find time during the same debate to explain to the House how many ladies and gentlemen of the press who are members of the Lobby here have passes and park their cars in the car park below New Palace Yard?

Mr. Newton: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must remind hon. Members that they have only one bite at the cherry so far as the Leader of the House is concerned.

Mr. Allason: I referred to London transport.

Madam Speaker: Hardly, considering that the matter concerned this House. The hon. Gentleman might think of putting his question to a Committee, rather than to the Leader of the House, because he is thereby taking up the time of the House.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful for your helpful steer to my hon. Friend, Madam Speaker. The matter which he has raised is for the Administration Committee. I will bring the first half of my hon. Friend's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Secretaries of State for Health and for Wales about underfunding in the health service and, in particular, the fact that the 2. 9 per cent. pay award to health workers apparently has not been funded centrally? In my constituency, the local health trust is already warning that that could mean redundancy for 100 health workers. If that were repeated throughout the country, there would be many thousands of redundancies as a result of underfunding.

Mr. Newton: Naturally, I will bring the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, but she might be as resistant to its implications as I am. When I consider that the Government are now spending 65 per cent. more on the NHS in real terms than did the Government that the hon. Gentleman would have supported, I find the suggestion of underfunding a bit stretched.

Mr. Graham Riddick: During which debate next week will I be able to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the Government's robust defence of Britain's voting rights in the EC? Is not that in sharp contrast to the position of the Labour party, whose leader in the European Parliament says that the blocking minority should be at least 27 votes? Is not it also in contrast to the Leader of the Opposition, who this afternoon proved once again—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is an abuse of business questions.

Mr. Riddick: Why?

Madam Speaker: I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. We are not here to make arguments. Hon. Members are asking the Leader of the House for a certain time next week to debate a matter, and not to put arguments. If the Leader of House allows it—and the hon. Gentleman catches my eye—I will call him next week, provided that there is a debate on those matters.

Mr. Newton: I cannot immediately see an opportunity for such a debate. However, knowing my hon. Friend's ingenuity, he may well find one.

Madam Speaker: He will be very lucky after that.

Mr. Paul Flynn: May we have a debate on the immediate threat to the jobs of 31,000 civil servants in Wales, and to congratulate the Minister of State, Welsh Office on courageously writing to the President of the Board of Trade, warning him of the danger of the loss of jobs in Wales if the Patent Office, the Account Services Agency and Companies House are privatised? When can we debate those urgent matters?

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's congratulations to my right hon. Friend. It seems to me highly unlikely that my right hon. Friend would accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestions about the likely consequences of privatisation.

Mr. Tony Banks: Did the right hon. Gentleman share my deep concern at the sight of Mrs. Thatcher collapsing in a heap in Chile recently? May we have a debate next week on the way in which old-age pensioners are forced to go abroad from this country to earn a crust?

Mr. Newton: I think that that is one of the hon. Gentleman's better questions, among many good ones. I hope that I may take it as an expression of sympathy and good will to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement—indeed, an explanation—from the Secretary of State for the Environment about his setting aside his decision of 2 August 1993 to refuse opencast mining at Birch Coppice in my constituency, which has now plunged thousands of my constituents into the threat of opencast mining? Does he realise that, if the Secretary of State had a job in private industry and displayed such crass incompetence, he would be sacked?

Mr. Newton: That was some more rather overheated language. Leaving that aside, I am not informed about the details, but I will bring the question to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on early-day motion 935?
[That this House rejects the proposal that Britain should be included in the Central European Time Zone; notes that the research which is being cited in support of this idea includes 20 year old data on road traffic accidents and therefore fails to take account of new circumstances such as the welcome reduction in evening drink driving; further notes that Cm 722 states that fuel savings would be 'very small compared to total energy costs'; would be appalled by a measure which would delay the winter sunrise until after 10 a.m. in much of Scotland and after 9 a.m. in other parts of the United Kingdom; fears that an artificial extension of morning darkness would have a detrimental effect on postal and goods delivery services, the construction industry and agriculture; condemns a proposal which would endanger people who begin work early in the mornings; noting that accidents to postmen and women doubled in the 1968 to 1971 experiment, and which would compel children to travel to school in darkness on icy roads; and calls on the Government to recognise the natural laws of the solar system by keeping the link with Greenwich Mean Time in accordance with the universally recognised World Time Order of 1844.]
Central European Time would be very damaging for postmen, farm workers and children on their way to school. Can he confirm that the Government have reversed their intention to introduce that change this Session, as reported in The Scotsman this morning?

Mr. Newton: I can confirm that there is a difficult balance of argument to weigh, and that the Government are currently continuing to consider future policy towards summer time.

Ms Joan Walley: In view of the Leader of the House's announcement about the debate next week on European matters, will he find time to ensure that we debate the huge difference between the facilities available to people who drive trucks in this country and in Europe? Is he aware that there is a growing number of women truckers, who want the same facilities as in other European countries—especially such things as toilet, washing and shower facilities?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I referred to a debate on European matters next week, although there is one immediately impending that raises some European issues in the agricultural field. I will bring the rest of the question to my right hon. Friend's attention, but of course the Government have been making efforts to improve facilities, especially on motorways.

Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: In a moment.

Adjournment Debates

Madam Speaker: I need to remind hon. Members that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 31 March, up to nine members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning, and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Points of Order

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware, as is the House, of the interminable interventions of the hon. Member for Newham some-geographical-point-north-somewhere.

Mr. Tony Banks: Try North-West.

Mr. Faulds: North-West—thank you so much for that information.
Would you not agree, Madam Speaker, that there is a sort of understanding in the House that, when one hon. Member wishes to make reference to another, he gives that other hon. Member notice? It was drawn to my attention a few days ago that, on an earlier occasion, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made reference to the discomfiture he suffered when I placed my buttocks beside him on this Back Bench.

Mr. David Winnick: Another scandal.

Mr. Faulds: Is there nothing sacred to this wanton boy? Is the House not aware that I have the most beautiful statuesque haunches, like carved Greek marble? Should the House not be aware that, when I place myself beside this hon. Gentleman, I get not a whimper of pain but a whinny of pleasure?

Madam Speaker: That was a very amusing comment, but it is hardly a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Graham Riddick: I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, if my question to the Leader of the House was too long, but, having watched the activities of other hon. Members, I was misled about what we can get away with.

Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration at having to wait for some time before being called. His pent-up feelings may have caused him to continue talking for much too long, but I am sure that he will watch it in future.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will you, Madam Speaker, arrange for an investigation into the use of privilege in this House? While we all greatly prize that power, should we not be reminded that the use of privilege can destroy the careers and ruin the reputations of people outside this building?
May we examine those who have put their names to an amendment to early-day motion 899, which draws attention to the fact that a Member—I warned him that I would draw attention to this matter this afternoon—has alleged that an ex-Member of this House got a job under circumstances that were close to nepotism? In spite of being told personally that that information was incorrect, and being told in a letter from Gwent county council that it does not employ the former Member, that Member has refused to withdraw his allegation. May we take the matter to the Select Committee on Privileges so that the Chamber cannot be used for McCarthyite accusations?

Madam Speaker: To some extent, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order. Although I shall not comment on the individual case, whether in speeches or early-day motions, all hon. Members should


exercise great care and restraint. We are all enormously privileged in this House; no one outside has our tremendous privileges. But privilege must always be tempered with responsibility, and I hope that all hon. Members will keep that in mind.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: It hardly needs a further point of order, but of course I shall listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Winterton: The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) mentioned the Select Committee on Privileges. On a point of information, has that Committee met this Session?

Madam Speaker: No, it has not met. We should be proud of the fact that, in this Parliament, we have not yet had to have a Select Committee on Privileges. I hope that we all conduct ourselves in such a manner that we have no need to establish one under my Speakership.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION FOR MONDAY 25 APRIL

Members successful in the ballot were:

Sir Michael Neubert

Mr. Michael Stephen

Sir David Steel

Common Agricultural Policy

[Relevant document: European Community Document No. 4251/94, the Court of Auditors Special Report No. 7/93 on fraud in agricultural areas.]

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4616/94 on agricultural prices for 1994–95 and related measures, and of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food publication 'Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1993'.
The common agricultural policy price proposals this year are relatively modest in their scope. This reflects the impact of CAP reform, which set the price and aid levels for many products for a three-year period starting in 1993. The proposals and the context in which they are set are, nevertheless, of considerable importance to our farmers.
I shall come to the price proposals shortly, but first I will address their context, much of which is described in the publication, "Agriculture in the UK 1993", referred to in the motion.
Since last year's CAP prices debate, many major changes have affected the fanning industry. The Agriculture Act 1993 has come into force, paving the way for important changes in the marketing arrangements for milk and potatoes. The CAP reforms introduced in 1992 are settling in and many of the teething problems have been addressed. Farmers have had to cope with difficult new tasks, not least the integrated administration and control system or IACS. Those affected, however—cereals farmers in particular—stand to benefit from a significant £1 billion in direct payments under the arable scheme.
Individual sheep and suckler cow quotas have been introduced for more than 115,000 flocks and herds. The vast majority of producers received their quota allocations automatically, and we are doing everything possible to meet the needs of the minority whose circumstances do not quite fit. As evidence of this, although we have not yet finalised the calculations, I am hopeful that we shall shortly be making a full quota allocation to producers in categories 1 and 2 of the 1993 sheep national reserve, and I am glad to announce that today we opened applications to categories 3 to 7.
Of crucial importance to British farmers is the agreement reached last December on the GATT Uruguay round. That agreement will provide a major boost to the world economy, which can only be good for Britain and British farmers. It also brings specific benefits for our farm industry.
First, it gives greater certainty about the future framework within which the CAP will develop. Secondly, it will help to reduce much of the tension with third countries which the CAP caused, thereby removing, for the time being at least, the threat of challenge to CAP mechanisms. Thirdly, it should lead, in time, to a better allocation of resources and stimulate producers to take a greater interest in improving their competitiveness.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On the question of the allocation of resources in the CAP, does my right hon. Friend's Department have a copy of the Thompson report which was prepared for the Commission and then suppressed by Jacques Delors because of its


inconvenient implications for French farmers? Does she not think that this document should be made public, because we understand that it demonstrates how we can halve the cost of the CAP over a number of years, improve the efficiency of European farming, and reduce the burden on the British taxpayer?

Mrs. Shephard: I do not have a copy of what is in fact an internal EC study. There is no evidence that it is being suppressed, but according to reports that I have read it contains some very useful ideas, many of which we would support. It examines supply controls and the move towards world market prices, and gives an interesting critique of the CAP.
My hon. Friend asked whether I would press for the report to be made public. It is certainly one of the matters that I shall be raising when I attend the Agriculture Council meeting on Monday and Tuesday. I expect to be told that the report is for internal consumption, but I also expect the ideas that it contains to reach the light of day. They will be of great interest to the Government and, I am sure, to my hon. Friend.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I press the right hon. Lady on this point? She says that she might be told that the report is for internal consumption, but she sits on the Council of Ministers which is discussing these matters. Surely the people who hold the report are European civil servants and the report is the property of the Council of Ministers—although there is a distinction between the Council and the Commission. Could she not insist that the report be made public, and having insisted, could she not make it available in the Library of the House of Commons because many of us would find it very interesting indeed?

Mrs. Shephard: Since I have not seen the report and am not yet aware of its status, I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly, but he can be certain that I will raise the matter at the Agriculture Council and with the Commission. Since it was commissioned not by the Council but by the Commission, there might be a slight awkwardness. What is of interest, however, is clearly the information that it contains as well as other reports of the same ilk.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) has raised an important matter. Does the Commission produce many documents to which the Council of Ministers may not necessarily have access? Is that an established position?

Mrs. Shephard: I am happy to answer the question, but I would then like to move on.
The Commission does a great deal of continuing work. If the hon. Gentleman asks the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), who is sitting next to him and who has a great deal of experience of the subject, he will confirm the position. The papers that are commissioned by the Council of Ministers naturally come within its ownership. However, any information that can inform debate within the Agriculture Council is of interest to me, which is why I shall raise the matter next week—on Monday and Tuesday.
I was talking about the implications of GATT. I know that there is some concern among the farming community that further radical policy changes might be needed to meet the requirements of GATT. The National Farmers Union

has done detailed work on the subject. I think that its estimates of the impact of GATT err on the gloomy side, particularly in relation to cereals and milk. We are closely in touch with the NFU on the details. Our analysis of the impact of the agreement supports the Commission's conclusion that common agricultural policy reform and the GATT agreement are broadly compatible.

Mr. John Greenway: If the GATT agreement is broadly compatible with CAP reform, why is the Commission proposing a 1 per cent. reduction in milk quota, which would be deeply damaging to milk producers in this country? Will the Minister assure the House that she will resist that proposal at the Council of Ministers next week?

Mrs. Shephard: I shall come in a moment to the way in which I propose to tackle the price proposals next week. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall resist a cut in Britain's milk quota, and I shall explain that later in my remarks.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Shephard: I shall not take any more interventions for the moment if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I am sure that he will be able to contribute later.
The fact that we believe that CAP reform and the GATT agreement are broadly compatible does not mean that there will be no further CAP reform. The need for reform of the Mediterranean and sugar regimes is clear, and the reform of the beef regime is only partly achieved. Those reforms would be required regardless of GATT, but the GATT agreement reinforces them and offers a coherent way forward.
My starting point in considering the price proposals must be my immediate objectives for agriculture, which is a major British industry, occupying almost 80 per cent. of the land area of the United Kingdom. Its importance for the prosperity of the rural economy and the maintenance of an attractive countryside cannot be overstated. It provides the raw materials for our food processing industry. It is the first —and an essential—link in the food chain, extending from the farmer, through the food industry and retailers, to consumers and their families. That chain employs 14 per cent. of the nation's work force and contributes 9 per cent. to the nation's gross domestic product.
The Government recognise the central importance of farming. Our objective is to ensure that British farmers are given every opportunity to compete successfully and to prosper. Provided that the conditions are right, the efficiency and flexibility of British farmers and their ability to respond to changing market developments and technological opportunities will ensure their success. We are taking important steps to ensure that the conditions are right. Central to our approach is my belief that our farmers will best be served by allowing them to compete in a free and open market, unencumbered by over-regulation or distortion and bureaucracy.
A key task is the removal of unnecessary regulation from farmers. That was the prime motive for legislating to change the arrangements for the marketing of milk. I have also announced a timetable for a free market in potatoes to be set up. When parliamentary time permits, I plan to introduce proposals to reform the agricultural holdings


legislation so that more land will be let, more farms become available and more opportunities created for new entrants to farming.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: My right hon. Friend rightly refers to the steps that she is taking in respect of the potato industry and of milk, but she will also be aware that there is a great deal of concern among farmers in the livestock sector, arising from the fact that the very measures introduced to reform the CAP have brought with them unnecessary bureaucracy. Although many farmers in my constituency welcome the changes announced at the end of the year, can my right hon. Friend tell us whether there are to be further changes to simplify what has become an unnecessarily complex system?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is likely to be referring to the cattle identification documents for beef. We have achieved considerable simplification of those arrangements, as I announced at the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union. The industry welcomed the simplification, but there is still some way to go. Some regulation is necessary to combat fraud, of course, as I am sure my hon. Friend will understand.
The Government will also need to fight for a level playing field for our farmers. I hope that that will be the only time I use the phrase "level playing field" in this debate, but I fear that it will not be. This sometimes means bringing other European member states up to our level —for example, in animal welfare, an area in which I have been pressing hard for legislation to put others on a par with our own high standards. Elsewhere, I have maintained the pressure on the Commission to ensure that Community legislation is properly enforced in all member states, especially in respect of state aids.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I, too, would like to avoid the phrase "level playing field", but the Minister has referred to regulations in and differing practices between national states in the Community. Should we not first put our own house in order, particularly in respect of regional differences in relation to arable farming? The Minister will be well aware, as I have written to her about this, that Wales is discriminated against by comparison with England. A farmer in a Welsh less-favoured area will receive, at the latest estimate, only £110 per hectare for cereals, while a farmer in England growing cereal in similar conditions will receive £191. How does that square with what I shall describe for the second and last time as a level playing field?

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that as I seem to recall that he asked me the same question at our last oral Question Time. He knows that these matters must be dealt with for the United Kingdom as a whole, with the agreement of territorial Ministers and of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I also told the hon. Gentleman at the time that the arrangements pertaining to Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give close consideration to the matter of inspection and try to devise a system in which countries do not supervise their own countrymen? It has been proved time and again that other European countries will not

condemn their own nationals. If they were examined by nationals from other countries, it would be much easier to get on top of state aids and to reduce the fraud which still disfigures the Community.

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is correct to say that if there are to be higher standards—of animal welfare, or of compliance—the EC needs to pay attention to the policing and enforcement of those standards. At my insistence in a particular instance the Commission has opened proceedings against France in respect of support being given to its pig sector.
An important contribution to British farming's future comes from Government-funded research. My Department will spend about £117 million on agriculture and food research and development in 1994–95. That is a large sum. The benefits to farming of our research and development programmes are also substantial. They have led, for instance, to significant improvements in animal breeding, helping farmers to produce the better quality products that consumers demand.
We are also promoting work on non-food crops and animal welfare. Research into the precision application of farm chemicals has contributed to a better environment as well as improving efficiency. Looking further ahead, there are important benefits to be exploited from advances in plant sciences and molecular genetics. In all these ways and more, our research and development programme is designed to help our farmers and the industries and consumers whom they serve.
The Government also recognise the importance of successful marketing for the future of British agriculture. Here we have given a lead through a range of valuable measures, including refocusing Food From Britain, which we are supporting with more than £15 million over the next three years, the Continental Challenge and the proposed new marketing development scheme. I have asked my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary to involve themselves personally in specific areas where they have particular expertise.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Before leaving the subject of aid, will my right hon. Friend tell the House and the public exactly what was the purpose of the very substantial and costly area payments that were introduced? According to information that has been provided, they have cost an absolute fortune, but quite a number of people are not terribly sure what they are for.

Mrs. Shephard: I shall be delighted to answer my hon. Friend's question. The new area payments system is part of the reformed common agricultural policy. It is designed to reduce support for the end product—in this case cereals, the reduction being 35 per cent. over three years. Payments are made direct to the producers, as compensation, on condition that they set aside 15 per cent. of their arable land.
It is widely agreed that within the single European market, and with the greatly increased trade in cattle and other livestock, we need to be particularly on our guard against the import of animal disease. That is why I have introduced newly strengthened measures to reinforce our defences. I have also made clear my determination to take whatever additional measures are necessary to safeguard this country's high health status.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly for the health of our farming industry, the Government are pursuing a sound


economic policy, which has resulted in inflation at consistently low levels not previously achieved for more than 30 years. Interest rates are among the lowest in the European Union, and it is generally agreed that the economy is well on the way to recovery. This provides a sound foundation on which farmers can base their decisions in what is necessarily a long-term business.
Through all these means the Government are supporting British farming. We do so because it is an essential British industry, producing some 73 per cent. of the country's requirements for the food we are able to grow. Our total food and drink exports were worth some £8 billion in 1993 —6.6 per cent. of our total exports.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend has just given export figures, but our imports are about £13.5 billion, which means that in the food and drinks sector there is a deficit of about £6 billion. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while Food From Britain is doing an excellent job in promoting our exports, additional measures could be taken to encourage import substitution so that we might have more of our own produce, thereby reducing the deficit?

Mrs. Shephard: The efforts of Food From Britain and the group marketing grants are designed to achieve precisely this end. There is some limitation when it comes to achieving a complete wipe-out of the trade gap of £6 billion. This is due to our being unable to grow tangerines in Inverness, and so on. However, we could encourage domestic consumption and more energetic and vigorous export efforts.

Mr. Robert Hicks: On import substitution, the alleged state aid in relation to pigs and pig meat is a classic example of the way in which United Kingdom producers can satisfy and enhance their section of the United Kingdom market. At present such an outcome is being prevented by alleged dumping, particularly by the French but possibly by others as well, as a consequence of subsidies being given to domestic producers.

Mrs. Shephard: We should certainly take action where we can prove that illegal state aid is being given by other member states. In the case of the illegal aid to the French pig industry, we were greatly aided by the helpful action of the French Government, who issued a press release telling us their intention. It is not always so easy to prove, but where there is proof I will act.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Shephard: I will give way, but I have taken some dozen interventions and after this one I should like to make progress.

Mr. Gill: I am sure that the House accepts that we cannot grow tangerines in Britain, but there are more fundamental problems of which the Minister is aware. In many instances they result from the fact that quotas limit the amount of raw material produced in Britain for our manufacturers. I was thinking particularly of sugar beet and milk. Those who add value to products cannot source raw materials at world prices, but have to pay the enhanced European Union price. That is surely one of the big,

fundamental problems that must be addressed if we are to reduce the deficit in our food and drink balance of payments.

Mrs. Shephard: As so often happens, my hon. Friend puts his finger on the problem. The United Kingdom has never supported the use of quotas as a means of supply control because they distort the market, they are a disincentive for new entrants and they work side by side with all the market forces in a most difficult way. However, our argument did not prevail. Quotas were established to limit over-supply of commodities such as milk. Given that they now exist, I certainly do not want our industry disadvantaged by a further quota cut in important commodities such as milk when we are ideally suited to produce milk and certainly want the jobs that can come from additional manufacturing of milk products.
We support British farming because of its vital role in sustaining the most vulnerable and remote areas of our country and conserving the countryside. In that context, because farmers and some hon. Members have expressed concern following the recent cuts in hill livestock compensatory allowances, I should stress that our commitment to support livestock farming in the hills remains. We have no plans to abolish HLCAs, which are a long-standing and integral part of the Government's agricultural policy, but it is worth emphasising that the 67,000 livestock farmers in the hills will receive this year more than £550 million in direct payments. That is a measure of the strength of our commitment. Nevertheless, I am aware of the concern and I shall be undertaking a series of visits to our hill areas in the spring, summer and autumn. At the same time, we are integrating environmental aims more closely in environment policy.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Lady has told the House that she intends to visit hill areas. Will that be in all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland?

Mrs. Shephard: I have had an invitation to visit Northern Ireland and I hope that I shall be able to accept it.
Last week, I announced a further six environmentally sensitive areas, two in the south-west, three in the centre of England and one in Essex, taking the total to 22, covering some 10 per cent. of our agricultural land. That will be followed by a series of further new environmental measures that I plan to introduce in the coming months. They will lead to United Kingdom expenditure on agri-environmental schemes rising to £100 million.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister has touched on the important issue of agri-environmental payments. Is it now Government policy to shift support from production to environmental payments? If that is a clear shift in Government policy, will she consider simplifying the environmental payments as there are so many schemes with different criteria in different parts of the United Kingdom? A simplified system would be easier to administer and easier for the farmers to understand and would enhance the environment.

Mrs. Shephard: We are introducing an environment component into the support for livestock farming in the hills. That may be what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I am aware of the problems of livestock farmers in some hill areas, who might have the misfortune to be the subject of several schemes which interlock but do not always quite


work together and have proper demarcation. That is certainly one of the issues that I shall be examining when I visit our hill areas. We shall shortly also be issuing a consultation paper on how to improve the environmental contribution of the main livestock subsidy schemes.
A further important issue for the farming industry is the future of the Agricultural Wages Board, on which we have consulted widely. As I said earlier, the consultation exercise generated almost 4,000 responses, with the vast majority supporting retention. That consultation exercise has raised a number of important issues which I am considering carefully with my colleagues, and I hope to make a statement before Easter on the way forward. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland plans to make a statement on the future of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board at the same time.
The past two years have seen farm incomes rise substantially. The information is given in detail in "Agriculture in the UK 1993" and "Farm Incomes in the UK" which have just been published. Total income for farming in the United Kingdom rose in 1993 by 38.6 per cent. in real terms, following an increase of 24.2 per cent. the previous year. That is good news after several years of decline. It has provided an opportunity for farmers to pay off debt and invest in replacement machinery. As I meet groups of farmers, I detect a slightly more buoyant feeling among them, although, as I always say, I would not want anyone to think that farmers have had a good year.
I recognise that not all sectors have fared so well. The pig sector is suffering from a difficult period of low prices, although there have been slight improvements in recent weeks. Parts of the horticultural industry, particularly apple and soft fruit producers, are experiencing difficult times.

Mr. Michael Lord: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the difficulties facing the pig industry and the apple growers, and I am sure that she is tackling them as robustly as she can. I must stress that speed is absolutely essential. Unless help comes quickly, or unless the countries which are helping their farmers are prevented from giving that aid, the crucial time will have passed, the damage will have been done and the opportunity will have been missed.

Mrs. Shephard: Clearly, the fruit and vegetable regime is due for reform, which should take place this year. It is sad that the industry is experiencing the current problems after the sterling efforts of English Apples and Pears in promoting a superb product. I have said before that if everybody in Britain ate just one more Cox's apple each week, which is not a hardship, it would go a long way to solving the problem. Nevertheless, reform of that regime is overdue. Those two sectors apart, the industry is in a happier position than for some time.
I have gone into the details of domestic agriculture because that determines my approach to the CAP in general and price fixing in particular.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that dairy farmers, of whom I am not one, are extremely concerned that there should be an early decision about the plans put up by the milk marketing board? Will she always remember that the milk marketing board was set up because the dairy industry


had small dairy farmers in remote parts of the country screwed down into a state of helplessness? Does she realise that, even now, those people in the dairy trade will never be satisfied until they have taken the milk industry back to the state of near helplessness that it used to be in and that the sooner she makes a decision to support dairy farmers, on the basis of what the milk marketing board is asking, the better?

Mrs. Shephard: I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the board's proposals on Milk Marque have gone out to consultation and we have asked for replies by 8 April. The vesting day of 1 November—the date proposed by the board, not MAFF—looks achievable, although obviously I cannot prejudge the effects of the consultation. I can reassure my right hon. Friend, however, that I am very aware of the vulnerability of milk producers, particularly those in the most isolated areas of Britain. I know that they want certainty, but equally they do not want a half-baked scheme that will then be prey to criticism from the competition authorities. It is most important that we get it right. I hope that 1 November is achievable.
Our objective is to get a CAP that will encourage a competitive and more market-driven European industry in which our farming industry is bound to succeed. This is the only realistic approach, bearing in mind the budgetary constraints that now exist and the movement towards a more liberal world trading system following the recent GATT agreement. As so often, thinking in the UK is well ahead of that of its partners. The NFU's recent discussion document "Real Choices" shows that it, too, is wisely taking a longer-term perspective. European agriculture will only prosper in the long run on the basis of being competitive in world markets. That is why we pressed so hard for reform of the CAP. The 1992 reforms were a big step forward. They reduced the overall cost of the policy, brought farmers closer to the market and improved the environmental aspects of the CAP. But they were only a first step. We need to take the reform process forward, initially by reforming the unreformed sectors—notably wine, fruit and vegetables, sugar and olive oil.
The beef regime needs further reform because of continuing market imbalance and high costs. The price proposals for beef rightly seek to limit excessive spending on the beef special premium scheme in other member states, but not in the UK. I am, however, disappointed that the prices package contains nothing on further reform for beef or the unreformed sectors, and I shall be pressing the Commission to come forward with early proposals.
We have consistently been concerned at the high cost of the CAP. The introduction of both the budgetary stabilisers and the agricultural guideline resulted from UK pressure, and placed a brake on other member states' spending ambitions. Earlier this week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor secured agreement on a new budget discipline decision that will reinforce the operation of the guideline in the context of the European Council decisions in Edinburgh. The cost of the CAP to consumers has been brought under control: indeed, the rise in the food price index has been consistently below that in the general retail price index in recent years.
Against that background, as I have already indicated, the price proposals are rather more limited in scope than they have traditionally been. For the most part, they make no adjustment to the price and aid levels set by CAP reform. Support for commodities still awaiting reform is,


in the main, retained at last year's level. It is proposed to cut monthly increments for cereals to reflect lower costs of storage. The monthly storage refund for sugar is to be similarly reduced. The aid to linseed is to be cut. In the milk sector, the Commission has presented two reports to the Council: one on the market situation for dairy products and the other on the implementation of the quota system in Spain, Italy and Greece.
The market situation report concludes that the market for milk and milk products in the Community is currently in better shape than was feared at the time of CAP reform in 1992. But in view of its concerns about the fragility of the situation, the Commission proposes that milk quotas should be cut by 1 per cent. from 1 April. To address the specific problem of continuing structural imbalance in the butter market, it also proposes that the intervention price for butter should be reduced by a further 3 per cent. from 1 July, which would be in addition to the 2 per cent. reduction that has already been agreed.
The price proposals will generate budgetary savings of £26 million in 1994 and £1.3 billion in 1995. The very large saving in 1995 results mainly from the proposal to postpone the payment of olive oil aids so that they fall into the 1996 budget. For 1994, CAP expenditure appears likely to be below the guideline, but it is not clear that the proposed savings are sufficient to ensure that the guideline is respected in 1995. I shall be pressing the Commission for clarification on that, and it will be a key objective to ensure that the outcome of the price fixing respects budget discipline. In any event, I believe that CAP support levels are too high, and I shall be urging the Council—subject to questions of balance between commodities—to adopt reductions.
One of the most controversial sectors in the negotiation will be milk. The Government can support the proposed reduction in the butter intervention price; indeed, we would argue that an even deeper cut is justified. But we are opposed to a reduction in milk quota, for precisely the reasons I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). We do not have enough quota to meet our needs, and a further reduction in quota would deal a severe blow to the British dairy industry.
We will therefore oppose the proposed quota cut in the strongest possible terms. It is not justified by the Commission's analysis of the market situation and is not necessary to meet the Community's GATT obligation. It would have an adverse impact on the 1995 budget, largely because of the impact on the beef sector and the expensive accompanying compensation package that there would have to be for producers. And it would be indefensible at a time when large allocations of quota have been made to the acceding EFTA countries and when the Commission is proposing to make unjustifiably generous awards of additional quota to Spain, Italy and Greece.
That brings me to the Commission's report on the implementation of the quota system in the southern member states. It is clear from the report that, while all three countries have made progress, none has fully met the conditions on which additional quota was granted provisionally last year. Yet the Commission is proposing that Spain's additional quota should be awarded definitively for 1994–95 and beyond, and that the allocations for Italy and Greece should continue in 1994–95, albeit on a provisional basis and at a reduced level for Italy in view of its failure to meet its target for reducing surplus milk production.
These proposals cause me considerable difficulty. When we agreed last year to the provisional award of additional quota to those countries, we did so on the clear understanding that certain conditions would be met. The Commission's report identifies shortcomings in all three cases. They are perhaps not so serious in the case of Spain as to warrant the withholding of quota, but that quota should be awarded provisionally pending a further review of progress later in the year. The situation in Greece and Italy is more worrying still. There are significant deficiencies in the Greek system for administering quotas, and there are serious doubts as to whether Italy can achieve the target set by the Council for reducing surplus milk production. In the circumstances, the Commission's proposals are too generous and the allocations to both those countries should, at the very least, be reduced. I shall press for that.
I also believe that the Commission has failed to think through its proposals to reduce the aid to linseed. There is a risk, therefore, that it will increase rather than decrease expenditure, because the aid reduction, combined with the new requirement on linseed growers to set aside 15 per cent. of their land, will upset the balance with competing crops and lead to a shift out of linseed. The right approach, which I shall be urging on the Commission, is to cut the aid to flax. That crop is very expensively supported and it will expand significantly if we do not get the balance right.
A further important element of the Government's approach to the CAP is the fight against fraud. Fraud does not just damage the taxpayer's interests; increasingly, as total aid levels are subject to regional ceilings, it damages farmers' interests too. The United Kingdom has led the campaign in Brussels against fraud, and we shall continue to do so.
Yesterday's proposal by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to launch a joint action is just the most recent UK initiative. Our efforts have borne some fruit: the tobacco regime has been changed, largely to deal with its vulnerability to fraud. The Maastricht treaty strengthened the role of the European Court of Auditors, and imposed a requirement on member states to treat fraud against the Community budget no less seriously than fraud against national budgets.
To an extent, CAP reform will help to reduce the scope for fraud in, for instance, export refunds and intervention —aspects that have been subject to much criticism. Direct payments to farmers are easier to control, and the integrated administration and control system, which we strongly supported, will ensure that the rules are the same in all member states.

Mr. Ainger: I must again raise the issue of the way in which Welsh farmers appear to be treated differently from English farmers, especially in regard to delays in payments of sheep and beef premiums. Does the Minister accept that, while we can criticise other nation states in Europe, we really must get to grips with the problems in the United Kingdom before we start criticising other countries?

Mrs. Shephard: I entirely agree. Certainly, where fraud is discovered in this country—we are talking about fraud, rather than implementation of the reformed CAP —it will be firmly and vigorously pursued, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows.
As for the administration of the arable area payment scheme in Wales, I am sorry to say that that is a matter for the Welsh Office; but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will pursue the issue.

Mr. Ainger: rose—

Mrs. Shephard: No, I will not give way any more; that is it.

Mr. Ainger: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are debating the implementation of CAP prices in the United Kingdom. I understand it to be Government policy that Wales is part of the United Kingdom. I am asking relevant questions about this point, but I am told by the Minister that they are a matter for someone else. May I have your assistance, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Hon. Members: Bogus.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I can do without sedentary help from hon. Members.

Mr. Ainger: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I have your view on this? I have asked relevant questions, within the terms of the debate, to which I have been unable to obtain answers.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair cannot adjudicate on the extent to which Ministers' answers satisfy hon. Members. In other words, that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mrs. Shephard: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have outlined my objectives for the forthcoming negotiations, and for the longer-term development of the CAP. My policy is rooted in my belief in British farming, which is a major player in the British economy. People tend to criticise farmers, while forgetting the essential fact that they produce food—three quarters of the country's indigenous food requirements. That is a contribution that we literally cannot live without.
British farming is pursuing a more market-oriented approach, with Government help and considerable success. However, the fundamental importance of agriculture to our economy, and the fact that nearly every country in the world provides support for its farmers—some to a far greater extent than us—mean that it does need Government support. Support must fall to more realistic levels, but as long as agriculture needs basic support we shall continue to supply it. Farming is not only the keystone of the rural economy; farmers are the traditional guardians of the environment, and they need support to help them to maintain that role.
Earlier today, the Labour party held a press conference. I think that it was about the CAP; it certainly was not about British agriculture. I am glad to say that Labour was very clear about its support for Government policy—reducing the cost of the CAP, reducing waste in the CAP and reducing fraud in the CAP. Those are all admirable objectives. What the party was not clear about was its support for the British farmer: there was not a word of praise, support or encouragement for him or her. I suppose that that is hardly surprising in a party whose preoccupations are entirely urban.
As for the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), no doubt we can look forward this afternoon to his explanation of how he and his party can square their intention to bring about a federal Europe with a separate agriculture policy for Britain. Perhaps that will not be too difficult for them; they have had a good deal of practice in facing both ways at once. Whatever they come up with, however, will not be good for Britain.
We should dispel the gloom of the faint-hearted. We can and do win in Europe, although we often stand alone. From that originally isolated position, my predecessor overturned the MacSharry proposals, which would have done so much harm to British farmers. What is more, it is the United Kingdom that has placed concern for the environment at the centre of the CAP and changed the emphasis of the CAP, bringing it closer to the market. Those are significant achievements, suggesting that our influence in Europe is greater than some would have us believe.
I shall be fighting to ensure that we continue to influence the CAP, and to ensure equality of treatment for all member states of the European Union. I believe that our farmers are the most efficient in Europe. We support them, but I want them to help themselves as well. This year's general agricultural prosperity gives them a sound foundation on which to build up their own image—to present themselves as the responsible business men that they are.
My intention is clear: to continue to fight for the success of a prosperous and efficient British agriculture. Agriculture is vital to the prosperity of Britain, the economic health of our rural areas and the environmental health of our landscape. It is a cause worth fighting for.

Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
'commends the contribution which farmers and farm workers make to the economy and supports the maintenance of the agricultural wages boards in their present form in order to prevent an increase in poverty in the countryside; deplores the budget cuts in hill livestock compensatory allowances, in capital grants and in research and development which, coming on top of previous cuts, will inflict long-term damage on the industry; believes that the 1992 changes in the Common Agricultural Policy, including the introduction of set aside, which the then British Agricultural Minister, the Right honourable Member for Suffolk Coastal, described as very much in the United Kingdom's interest do not adequately address the failures of the common agricultural policy including its exorbitant cost to the taxpayer; and is of the view that the Government's claims to be tackling waste, fraud and bureaucracy are hollow as long as the Common Agricultural Policy continues in its present form.'
I welcome the Minister to her first general agriculture debate. As she will probably recall, at one time we used to have a major agriculture debate each year, following the annual price review. After we joined the European Community, the major agriculture debate was held before the crunch decisions were taken on the annual EC prices package. As the Minister herself pointed out, because of the MacSharry reforms the annual price-fixing has become less significant. Therefore, in my view, it is still appropriate to hold the debate before the final decisions are made in the Agriculture Council, because they are important decisions. Nevertheless, the debate is really a general agriculture debate.
The Minister has already criticised the statement that I made this morning on the remarkable ground that I said


nothing in support of Britain's farmers and farm workers. I suggest that the Minister begins by reading the Opposition amendment, whose first words are
commends the contribution which farmers and farm workers make to the economy".
I note that there is no reference to farmers and farm workers in the Government motion.
When the Minister took on her responsibilities about 10 months ago, we had high hopes. We thought that her appointment would lead to some change—at least some mitigation of the policies pursued by the Conservative party for so many years which have damaged the agriculture industry. As I shall explain, we have been disappointed: the Minister has failed to live up to that early promise. Indeed, I submit that there has been no substantial change in the general thrust of the Government's policy following her accession to her important position.
Let me remind the right hon. Lady that, in what I believe was her first intervention in the final stages of the passage of the Agriculture Bill in 1993, she spoke out about the Government's position on the potato issue. She will already have disappointed not only much of the potato industry but, dare I say it, even some of her own constituents with the outcome. I welcomed the Minister's statement on the potato marketing board during the passage of the legislation as it represented a clear change from the statements made by her predecessor. But the House needs no reminding that, within a few months, on 30 November, she made a definitive statement that
Having considered all the arguments with great care, we have concluded that the Scheme must come to an end".
Any hopes that there might have been some help for the potato marketing board were dashed within a few months.
I shall not blame the Minister for the disarray in the milk industry because she inherited the 1993 Act when it was too late to amend it. The state of the milk industry is a direct consequence of the irresponsible legislation introduced by her predecessor. If anyone cares to read the statements that we made during the passage of that Act, they will recognise that our line has been vindicated.
I remind the House that we wanted to retain the milk marketing boards, although we wanted to build in greater flexibility. A Labour Government fought with great difficulty to secure amendments to European Community legislation—I remember being in the Council of Ministers at the time—and the continuation of the milk marketing boards. Conservative Governments should have maintained that policy. Rather than confronting industry directly and saying, "Look, as Conservatives, we are against the milk boards because we think they are a form of pragmatic socialism"—a phrase used by a previous Conservative Cabinet Minister—the Minister's predecessor sought to hide behind the Commission's view that the milk marketing board scheme did not encompass skimmed and semi-skimmed milk. Since the legislation was enacted, however, the European Court's adviser, the Advocate General, has come out against the EC Commission and has supported the British industry's view that the scheme encompassed skimmed and semi-skimmed milk.

Mr. James Paice: rose—

Dr. Strang: I shall not give way as frequently as the right hon. Lady—she is the Minister—but I shall give way on a few occasions and with pleasure to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman fought hard to save or to continue the milk marketing board after our accession to the European Community in the early 1970s. Does he draw any conclusions from the fact that in the past 20 years dairy products from abroad have achieved a massive penetration of the British dairy market—it has suffered as a result—because of the inability of the milk marketing scheme to adapt to the pressures caused by the new marketing systems and the development of new dairy products?

Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Part of the answer to his question lies in what the Minister said. She reminded the House that the Government had opposed the introduction of milk quotas, which place a constraint on the expansion of our milk industry. It is a worrying situation. As he may be aware, some multinational companies—I will not name them—are threatening to move their investment elsewhere because they are not satisfied that they will be able to get enough milk to produce the high-value products that he and I want them to produce in this country. We should have built some additional flexibility into the milk marketing boards scheme as it could have helped us to deal with the problem.
The milk marketing boards should have been retained. Once the Government decided that they were to be abolished, however, they should have accepted responsibility for the revised scheme. They should have said that they would consult the industry before deciding on the new arrangements for that hugely important industry. I put it no stronger than this—they might have concluded that the creation of regional, integrated co-operatives was the best way to secure a flexible market and competition with the big dairy companies. If the Government had considered that option—no doubt they would have paid great attention to the submissions of the milk marketing board and the Dairy Trade Federation—they might have reached that conclusion, in which case we would not have the present disgraceful state affairs
The introduction of the new arrangements has been delayed. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am misrepresenting the position, but, as I understand it, 1 November is the earliest that the new arrangements can come into force. There is a general belief that it will probably happen then, but I understand that the new revised arrangements are still under consultation. We do not yet know, therefore, whether they will satisfy the Government and come into operation on 1 November.
As the Minister implied this afternoon, the arrangements may be challenged on competition grounds by the United Kingdom or in the longer term—in two years or so —by the Commission. I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Shephard: I am not a gentleman yet, but I may become one. I do not feel like performing like one at the moment.
I did not say that the arrangements would be subject to challenge from the competition authorities. I said that we had to arrange matters so that they would not be subject to early challenge by the competition authorities. I said so in an answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), who wanted to speed up matters. I replied that, while I understood the problem of delay, I


did not want that delay to result in an arrangement that was subject to early challenge by the competition authorities. I think that the hon. Gentleman perhaps misheard.

Dr. Strang: I am grateful for that clarification. The right hon. Lady will understand that her intervention confirms the substance of my point that the Government are trying to ensure that the new revised arrangements are not subject to a challenge, or an effective challenge, by the Commission in the future.

Mrs. Shephard: Among many other things.

Dr. Strang: We shall accept that clarification as well.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the Minister had accepted the structure that we proposed in Committee, she would have secured her objective six months ago.

Dr. Strang: I pay tribute to the valuable work of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who led for the Opposition in the Committee that discussed the matter. I in no way disagree with him, but, whatever the Government do, and whatever the extent to which the Minister squares the position with her authorities, in two years' time, if not earlier, there is a possibility of a challenge from the Commission. Let us not forget that. We faced such a problem when we were in government. Understandably, the Governments of some member states will encourage the Commission to challenge the arrangements in this country.
We were disappointed by the Minister's statement on potatoes following the enactment of the Agriculture Act 1993. We were again disappointed by the outcome of the Minister's deliberations and those of the Government on public expenditure on agriculture. Hon. Members will understand that, in addition to the huge expenditure required under the auspices of the common agricultural policy, a substantial amount of expenditure is in the Government's control.
The Minister started by attacking the farm and conservation grants. The Government like to claim that they support the principle of a more environmentally friendly agriculture, but the Minister cut the grant for investment by farms in waste handling facilities. The Government also cut a range of other environmentally friendly grants, such as the grants for traditional walls—or for "dry stane dyking", as I believe hon. Members usually call it. The grants for the creation of hedgerows were cut too.
The Government have made it clear that when they need cuts in expenditure the environment is one of their first ports of call. So much for all their talk about the agri-environmental package and the need to encourage the building of environmental objectives into British agriculture.
The second target for cuts was, for the second year in a row, the hill livestock compensatory allowances. We listened carefully to what the right hon. Lady said about those. I welcome the fact that she is to visit the hill areas in England, and I am pleased that she will go to Northern Ireland. I hope that the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales will allow her to visit hill farmers in Scotland and Wales as well.
Perhaps the right hon. Lady could learn something if she spent time talking to the hill farmers of this country. She

might learn about the contribution that those people make to the natural environment. The beautiful scenery in the hill areas is not natural in that it would not exist if the area were depopulated. It is the hill farmers, their families and the other people who work on the hill farms who make that environment what it is. The hill farming industry provides the basis for the infrastructure and the economic basis for tourism in such areas.
Many of the hill farmers are not well off. Many still earn less than the average industrial wage. As I have said repeatedly, it is all very well for the Minister to talk about increases in incomes. Of course an increase has taken place, but that has to be judged against the very depressed previous level, especially towards the end of the 1980s.
I do not believe that the industry will be encouraged by the Minister's statement that the Government do not intend to abolish the HLCAs. It would have been encouraged by a statement that there would be no further cuts in the allowances while the Government are in office, or even an assurance that there would be no more cuts in the next public expenditure round.
The Labour party strongly supports the principle that farmers in the hill and marginal areas, many of whom run relatively small farms, cannot be expected to compete on the same terms as lowland farmers. That is why we should maintain the differential level of support, to give hill farmers a chance to increase their incomes further so that they can restart the investment that we need in those areas. That is what the HLCAs are all about.
I must mention the cuts in research and development. I listened with interest to what the right hon. Lady said about agricultural science in this country. To listen to her one would not have known that the Government had decimated our scientific base. But when the long-term economic and social history of the Government is written it will probably be found that the greatest damage that they have done to our long-term productive base has been the systematic slashing of publicly funded research and development—and nowhere more so than in British agriculture.
As the House knows, agricultural research and development has been singled out for more swingeing cuts than other areas of scientific endeavour. Scientists are still being made compulsorily redundant from our research stations. Only last week, when I visited Rothamsted, I found out that another seven had been made compulsorily redundant. The people in the research establishments are demoralised. The number of personnel has been slashed by half since the Government came to power, and many of those who are left are on short-term contracts.
I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the Ministry's policy. What sense do short-term contracts make for young scientists who want to do long-term agricultural research? Most agricultural research has to be done over the long term. It sometimes takes about three years for the soil to settle down after what has been applied to it. Almost all the recently recruited scientists in the research establishments are on short-term contracts, and the idea that we should rely on such contracts is undermining morale and making it harder for the establishments to attract and retain the high quality researchers whom we need.
I listened with interest when the right hon. Lady talked about the contribution that our scientists have made to animal breeding. May I remind her of the development of artificial insemination that was carried out at Cambridge, not far from her constituency? That was achieved through what was then the Agricultural Research Council. It was


not encouraged by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the time, but that is a different story. However, it makes the case for funding agricultural research not only through the Ministry but through the Office of Science and Technology.
I hope that when the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council comes into operation on 1 April the Minister will take the opportunity to call off the nonsense about yet more privatisation. The Government have sold off goodness knows what in research and development, and they are even considering privatising further some of the research establishments. But agricultural research is a long-term business, and much of it has to be done within the framework of the stale. Oil companies and fertiliser companies cannot do all the research that we need.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Strang: I shall not give way, because I want to move on now to the two major points that I wish to make, the first of which is about the future of farm workers and their wages boards.
Any hopes that we may have had that the Minister would mitigate the Government's excesses were greatly disappointed when she announced the publication of a consultation document on the future of the agricultural wages boards.
Farm workers earn only 67 per cent. of the average industrial rate. As I told the House at Question Time, even with the increase announced yesterday, they will still earn less than three quarters of the average wage of industrial workers. Taking the average of the Low Pay Unit and the Council of Europe's low pay thresholds, 43 per cent. of full-time male and 68 per cent. of full-time female agricultural workers have earnings below the low pay threshold. They earn £76 less per week than employees in manufacturing. That is a crude figure, but even with the recent increase the gap will still be £70 per week.
When the Government published their consultation document we heard the usual rhetoric. The covering letter with it says:
On the basis of its view that statutory wage fixing arrangements distort the labour market and destroy jobs, the Government has already taken steps to eliminate statutory wages controls in others sectors where they exist.
The Minister is, of course, knowledgeable on that subject, because as Secretary of State for Employment she presided over the final winding up of the wages councils. And evidence is already coming through that jobs in some of the low wage areas are being advertised at rates below those prescribed previously by the wages councils.
The right hon. Lady has acknowledged that the outcome of the consultation process has been an overwhelming view that the wages boards should be retained, but I fear that as a result the Government will announce a decision to retain the form of the wages boards, but not their substance. It is crucial that the House recognises that it will not be sufficient merely to retain the boards; it will be necessary also to retain the statutory provisions that underpin the wages and conditions of farm workers and their families.
We shall not complain if the announcement is delayed, but if it is made next week that will be all right with us. I hope that when the right hon. Lady makes that announcement she will be able to assure us that the Government will not follow their usual policy on wages

councils—as illustrated by their opting out of the social chapter—of trying to compete with our European competitors on the basis of lowering the wages of some of the least well off and, in the case of farm workers, some of the most deserving, and also some of the most skilled, workers in the country.
When the right hon. Lady said that the Secretary of State for Scotland would also be making a statement—I do not know whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be doing the same because there is a Northern Ireland wages board—I took it to mean that it would be made on the Floor of the House. I do not know whether the fact that there is to be a separate statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland means that there will be some disparity in the announcements. Whatever the answer, it is an important issue.
The second major aspect that I wish to cover is Europe and the common agricultural policy. By way of introduction, I mention that the right hon. Lady rightly referred to animal welfare. She will be aware of the great concern expressed about the lorry loads of sheep that arrived in Birmingham in a deplorable state. I urge her to redouble her efforts on animal welfare in general and, in particular, to accept that the United Kingdom must take a firm stance and seek the agreement of other member states to reduce the maximum journey time for animals in transit from the current 15 hours to eight hours in the United Kingdom and 24 hours elsewhere in the Community.
In the remaining few minutes, I wish to deal with the Minister's position on the European Community and the common agricultural policy.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Dr. Strang: I shall give way to my hon. Friend. I am sorry, I thought that it was an hon. Friend who was trying to intervene, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman with pleasure.

Mr. Ross: Perhaps I am his hon. Friend on this issue. Would not it be better to go further and encourage the slaughter of animals close to the point of production rather than the transporting of live animals?

Dr. Strang: I am not sure whether we can describe ourselves as hon. Friends, but we are in complete agreement on that issue. The Government should be doing precisely what the hon. Gentleman suggests.
The right hon. Lady has today been figuring in the columns of our newspapers in a rather big way. We understand that, on the 23 or 27 European Union blocking vote provision, the right hon. Lady has been arguing that the 27 blocking vote provision—the one which the hardline anti-marketeers, if I may call them that, are determined should not be foisted on the Government—might be quite useful in some spheres, including agriculture.
The Daily Telegraph reports:
However, on agriculture, the single market and air fare regulation, Britain would be prepared to see the blocking minority increased to 27.
The Daily Telegraph would probably like to regard itself as the Conservative party's best house journal—I do not criticise it for that because it is an excellent newspaper in many respects—but The Independent today carries a slightly fuller and more interesting report. It states that the Prime Minister reportedly pointed out at a lunch yesterday that


in certain circumstances the higher minority of 27 would be helpful to Britain. For example, while the UK constantly finds itself in a minority on social legislation—often of only one, or in EU terms just 10 votes—it"—
Britain—
is in a majority in wanting to secure the form of the Common Agriculture Policy, a point emphasised last night by … the Minister … to the Cabinet.
The Daily Mail, the last newspaper from which I shall quote, stated:
'The move has been supported by the Agriculture Minister, who believes that dilution of the veto will undermine the position of the heavily-subsidised 'olive oil' states.
That is very interesting, but I suggest that the right hon. Lady should perhaps not relay that information to Spain, which is still lined up behind, or alongside, Britain on this issue. I am sure that she will be aware that a large amount of olive oil is produced in Spain. I think I am right in saying that last year more than 2,800,000 tonnes of olives were grown in Spain, producing more than 500,000 tonnes of oil.
It is also worth noting that the British Government are apparently again interested in reforming the CAP. Indeed, there was a hint of that today when the Minister said that the 1992 reforms were only the first step. Let us leave aside for the moment her remarks about new sugar and wine regimes because we knew that they were coming, but I presume that she means that the reforms are a first step in relation to what is needed.
The Minister is well aware that her predecessor, the Secretary of State for the Environment, was so enthusiastic about the reforms that he claimed them as his own. He said that they were no longer the MacSharry reforms but the Government's reforms. He strongly supported the reforms at the time and, indeed, exactly a year ago he repeated his statement that the reforms were his. He said:
That is why we got rid of the MacSharry proposals and replaced them with our own. That is what the CAP reform achieved."—[Official Report, 25 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 1228.]
I assume that there is some movement in the Minister's p0osition and that she is gently bringing herself into line with the stance that the Labour party has consistently taken on the issue.
The truth is that the right hon. Lady has not dealt with the reform of the CAP. European taxpayers are now spending more than £30 billion a year on a common agricultural policy that keeps food prices high, builds food mountains and dumps cheap food on world markets. It has been estimated that in 1992 the CAP cost the average family of four about £20 a week in higher taxes and food prices. The Minister of State looks up with interest. I remind him that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury referred to that figure, although he put the figures in dollars, so the Government are now accepting the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's figure.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: How can the hon. Gentleman square his criticism of the CAP's budget with the European manifesto to which his party signed up and which states that we need further substantial public resources which have been estimated at £77 billion, double the current EC budget?

Dr. Strang: We want a common agricultural policy that will effectively support farmers and farm workers in the rural economy—that is not what we have at present. We

also want EC expenditure to be used to encourage industry, research and development, regional policy and social objectives throughout the Community, as well as agriculture. Of course, the Minister—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: rose—

Dr. Strang: No, I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that farmers in Europe were paid to leave fallow more than 6 million hectares of set-aside land last year. Meanwhile, the grain mountain last weighed in at more than 19 million tonnes. European taxpayers spend £2.5 million every day on the tobacco regime.
The truth is that the CAP is a disaster. Since 1979, under the Conservatives, the CAP budget has been bloated to one and a half times its size, after allowing for inflation. The Agriculture Commissioner has already had to admit that the CAP will not be kept within its enormous budget for 1994.
I listened with interest to what the right hon. Lady said about fraud. Much of the fraud does not take place in the southern European states, although there is fraud there among the farmers in the sense that they do not properly declare what they are producing or do not produce what they declare. There is massive fraud and British firms are in it as are others, taking advantage of open-ended state intervention, buying and the subsidising of agricultural exports. I am not convinced that the Government have been tackling the problem, not least because they have not taken up all the money allocated by the European Union to chase fraud.
The right hon. Lady has not seen the wood for the trees in respect of her participation in the Council of Agriculture Ministers. Dare I suggest that she has been the voice of the Norfolk grain barons in the Council of Agriculture Ministers. She has secured minor changes to set-aside. I emphasise the fact that we regard set-aside as a scandal. It is an outrage that we are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on objectives that are doing nothing positive for the environment, that we are taking out a disproportionate amount of production in the United Kingdom and, what is more, that we are paying large sums of money, often to wealthy landowners, for no great national benefit.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way as I know that he is just coming to the end of his peroration. All that he has done so far is criticise my right hon. Friend the Minister and say that he does not like set-aside. Will he confirm that that is the sum total of his party's agricultural policy? As he referred to certain cost items in terms of what his party would do, could he also tell us how much a Labour Government would spend in those agricultural areas and on what they would spend it?

Dr. Strang: I shall respond to the Minister of State in the one minute that I feel I can reasonably take.
First, we have made it clear that we want to see the subsidies disconnected from production; we are opposed to the continued use of subsidies to encourage production. The common agricultural policy was originally set up with that objective—it was a laudable objective at the time—in a deal between the French and German Governments. However, that should no longer be the objective. The deal was made before we joined the European Community.
We must break completely with a policy that continues to subsidise production. When we have surpluses, how can the Minister defend open-ended state intervention? For goodness sake, when will the British Government take a stand on these issues? We have a policy that is utterly indefensible and the 1992 MacSharry reforms, of which the right hon. Lady is still not prepared to let go, will not solve the problem; we all know that in our heart of hearts. How can anyone believe that set-aside is a solution to the cereals problems?
The British Government have failed agriculture. We all understand that an increase in farm incomes is the direct result of black Wednesday, the devaluation of sterling and the consequent increase in support prices. The Government are now threatening the incomes of farm workers by suggesting that they might abolish wages boards. They have utterly failed to address the excesses of the common agricultural policy. That is why my hon. Friends and I will vote for our amendment this evening.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: It is a great pleasure for me to take part in the debate and to follow so closely after the opening speech from my right hon. Friend the Minister. I welcome her involvement in agriculture. Her speech shows clearly her integrity and her wish for that great industry to do well. She also has a common sense approach to it; she wants to cut through all the complexities and get an industry that can stand on its own feet in the future. I agree that agriculture is one of our central industries and is crucial to the well-being of the countryside.
As my right hon. Friend said, the whole food chain accounts for 9 per cent. of the gross domestic product and employs about 14 per cent. of all people in work. Farming is at the heart of the food chain. However, despite the impressive increase in productivity recently, we still have a deficit of some £6 billion in the trade in food, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said. Although we cannot grow tangerines, we could grow half of that deficit quite easily, and that is what we must seek to do. That underlines the need to press for efficient production, which we are good at. We must involve all the modern techniques that we can and we must also have better marketing of our products—we all know that farmers can market their products much better—a level playing field and fair competition.
The industry is going through a time of unprecedented change. That has been brought about not only by the surpluses but by the large cost of the common agricultural policy. As a farmer, I welcome the fact that prices are reducing to world levels. That is healthy. None of us is sure what the world level is, but it is good that we should be moving towards it. It means that food is cheaper, contrary to what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) said. As a result of the decline in prices—for example, the decline in the price of wheat by 35 per cent.—over the next few years, food will be cheaper. As a component of price statistics, the declining value of food, combined with the static value of other products, is the reason why our inflation rate is so encouraging.

Mr. George Stevenson: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assessment of what the possible reduction in the price of food as a result of the cut in cereal prices might be, say, over the next three years?

Mr. Carlisle: Over the past year, there has been a 1 per cent. fall in seasonal food production—the prices came out yesterday. The figure stands for itself; it helps to keep the inflation rate low.
It is healthy for farming that subsidies are no longer disguised in prices. I think that all farmers preferred the old efficiency payment system where the subsidy gained for the farmer was absolutely clear. The common agricultural policy is trying to cope with the surpluses and at the same time lower prices to world levels. In addition, it is trying to provide a transitional period to farmers by making open payments to them. That is much better than hidden subsidies. If we explored, we would probably find that the cost of the CAP is less than the previous cost of the hidden subsidies.
Farmers are proud to be custodians of the countryside. They take great pride when the countryside looks good, is full of vitality and is good for wildlife. The current system provides exciting opportunities for the countryside, and for farmers to meet that role and make much better use of our land. The taxpayer will be prepared to continue subsidies only if he can see benefits to the countryside in a number of ways. Those benefits include proper conservation, the recreation of habitats and better access for the public where suitable. As that matter is so central to the continuation of subsidies to the farmer, I shall concentrate on it.
As we know, there are many special schemes to assist conservation—sometimes, a bewildering number. At the top of the list, we have sites of special scientific interest and environmentally sensitive areas. I welcome the fact that there will be four more ESAs shortly. There are also schemes, such as the countryside stewardship scheme, aimed at restoring habitat and landscape types. There is the interesting Tir Cymen trial in Wales where 28 adjacent farmers on 2,500 acres are getting together whole farm management plans to find a balance between farming and wildlife. There is also the set-aside scheme.
All those schemes are bewildering to those who must work with the land and I ask my right hon. Friend to try to integrate them and make them more understandable. A conflict arises from the schemes. As an example, one need look only at the Breckland ESA between Norfolk and Suffolk, which was set up largely to help the stone-curlew. If a farmer has an environmentally sensitive area under the scheme, he cannot count that against set-aside. However, because set-aside payments are higher than what he would get for the ESA, many farmers are not encouraged to look after their land in the best possible way. Clearly, that is one example of how we can try to sort out some of the conflicts between the schemes, which are admirable in many ways.
The real value of set-aside is not that it is a specialist scheme but that it applies to the wider countryside. It gives farmers who cannot apply for special schemes an opportunity to improve the habitat and create diversity in the wider countryside. Last year—the first year of set-aside —we set aside 15 per cent. of our land. I welcome the possibility this year of having non-rotational set-aside over 18 per cent. of our land. That will give far more options on how best to use our land for set-aside.
However, the announcement came far too late for farmers to plan their operations in a way that would allow them to introduce that this year. Announcements from Brussels and the Council should come early in the year, so that we can make use of them as we plan ahead and purchase our seeds and fertiliser for the coming year.
Using non-rotational set-aside, I am looking forward to creating green veins through the countryside by setting aside 20 m next to my best hedgerows. I am also looking forward to leaving woods along woodland edges, and many farmers will do their best to recreate water meadows along streams, which non-rotational set-aside allows.
We are also learning—thanks to the advice of organisations such as the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation and others—how to manage set-aside better. One of the lessons is that we should avoid early mowing or early cultivation if we are to enable set-aside to provide a proper habitat for all sorts of wildlife.
Progress in the second year of set-aside has been admirable and it enables us to do far better than in the first year, but there is scope for further improvement. I hope that in the second, third and fourth years of set-aside we shall be able to be even more constructive and therefore merit the subsidies more.
I should like to describe some of the changes which would help. I know that my right hon. Friend wanted the planting of woodlands to count against set-aside. At the moment, that cannot happen if one enters the farm woodland premium scheme and I hope that my right hon. Friend presses on that. I can assure her that, if we were allowed that, there would be a tremendous planting of broad-leaved woods, coppices and belts throughout lowland Britain. That would enhance the landscape in 50 or 60 years more than anything else. It is time for the rebirth of Capability Brown.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to press for the habitats scheme. It is important that it is not only a part of long-term set-aside, but should be allowed to count against set-aside despite the difficulty that she might have in winning that. The argument is simple. In the same way in which people will not plant woods unless that is counted against set-aside, they will be reluctant to go in for long-term set-aside under the habitats scheme unless that counts against set-aside.
We must review and take forward our policy on grazing and hay-making. The time-honoured way to produce good habitats in heathlands and water meadows is to graze lightly in late summer or take a light crop of hay. That has produced richly diversified habitats, but 1 September is too late to provide that.
The case for grazing is shown well by a friend of mine who has a mixed farm in Northumberland. He was keen to go for extensive grazing and yet he cannot put his set-aside land into pastures. If he could put his set-aside land into pastures and yet keep the same number of sheep and cattle, as he would have to do under the quota system, he could graze the totality of his pastures more extensively. At present, he must have a part of his land in set-aside and cram his livestock on to fields that are under grass. That, of course, gives the worst of both worlds, as there is over-grazing in some parts and unmanaged set-aside in others. We should look at the grazing regime if possible.
I would also like to see the green vein idea extended by allowing a 6 m stretch along hedgerows. I could then put those strips around all my fields giving access to the public and a greater variety of habitats for hedgerow plants and wildlife. The problem is that 6 m cannot be seen from a

satellite, but 20 m can. I recognise that there are problems, but I hope that my right hon. Friend can do something about that.
I hope also that she will press ahead with the moorland scheme. It is important to reduce stocking densities in less-favoured areas, and I would be grateful if she would let us know when that is to be introduced.
There is also a real role for organic farming which, while it will never be dominant in this country, should be encouraged. Therefore, I welcome the support for new entrants, but I ask my right hon. Friend to remove the skew against existing organic farmers. It takes about two or three years to build up the fertility of a field to go back into cropping if one is an organic farmer.
During that time, the land lies idle but cannot be counted against set-aside. The organic farmer must not only set aside 15 per cent. but nurture those fields where he is putting back fertility. If we take into account that the average yield of wheat on an organic farm is 2 tonnes to the acre, as opposed to 3 tonnes for a normal farm, there is a good argument for trying to be more sympathetic to organic farmers.
The access scheme is admirable, and all or most farmers have land near to villages or communities that could contribute to the quality of life in those communities. I should love to set aside part of my land next to our local village on to which people could take their dogs, and on which they would have greater freedom to roam. I hope that those ideas can be put forward more constructively.
I want to emphasise the need to encourage conservation in the wider countryside and not just the special areas that we have nurtured so far. We should consider what is the best use of the huge sums that sustain the common agricultural policy. Next year, we shall spend some £2.5 billion on the CAP.
There is an argument that we should give greater payments to those farmers who take active measures to increase the diversity and sympathy of their land for wildlife. Some mechanism could well be found for that and, if so, the public will accept that the subsidies are needed during the transition stage and will understand that good constructive work is being done in return.
Just as economic pressures led to surpluses with prices encouraging production during the 1970s and 1980s, so economic incentives should help to bring good conservation practices to the wider countryside. I know the difficulties of negotiating in the EC and this is a good chance for us to make subsidiarity work here. There should be more subsidiarity on how we tackle the reductions in what we produce on the land.
Farming is good for that, because it differs so much in each country and also in each region of the United Kingdom. We know that sheep farming in Sicily is different from sheep farming in the Pennines, but there is also a huge diversity of countryside within the United Kingdom. We must be sensitive in nurturing that diversity and applying slightly different management techniques to each area. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has a robust attitude to Brussels. She is a good European, but she understands what subsidiarity should deliver, and agriculture is a sector where we could do better.
In conclusion, I think that we all accept that we need healthy farming. We need a strong food industry. Farmers are custodians of the countryside. We need to sustain farming. We need to sustain the industry that relies on it. However, the surpluses that the skills of farmers and


scientists have produced give us a huge opportunity. Set-aside gives us an exciting chance to restore the countryside, to restore habitats and to encourage wildlife.
If I might give a mid-term report on our progress, I think that we have made some progress. I give every praise to my right hon. Friend the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for trying hard, but we have to work even harder to develop the remarkable potential that set-aside gives to our land.

6 pm

Mr. Colin Pickthall: I have listened to the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) with great admiration for their grasp of detail and their ability to ski round the issues with great skill.
I contrast their expertise and their erudition with what my constituents and, I believe, taxpayers throughout the country perceive as the nub of the issue that we are discussing—how much they pay, and for what, in subsidies and other measures involved with the agriculture industry. By and large, their answer to that question is that they pay too much and they pay it to too few. They perceive that the common agricultural policy forces them to subsidise a vast range of agricultural endeavour in a bewildering variety of ways, determined by incomprehensible formulae.
For example, The Times readers among my constituents —I presume that there are a few—will have read, on Monday last, 21 March, the story of Mr. Robert Sherriff, a farmer who has been paid £27,000 a year for growing only grass on more than half of his farm, which he has been doing for five years because he was part of the pilot scheme. It is quite a substantial article, headlined:
Fields that grow nothing yield lucrative harvest".
One interesting little passage in it is:
As a master of foxhounds with the Enfield Chase, Mr. Sherriff appreciates more crop-free land for horses and hounds to hunt over. 'All field sports have benefited"'
he says,
'because one of the few things you are allowed to grow on set-aside land is game cover."'
Whatever one's views on hunting, the idea that the taxpayer should be inadvertently subsidising that activity is a nonsense that, I am certain, all sides of the argument would deplore.
Occasionally one hears a very sane speech in the Chamber. I think that we have just heard one from the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), and there was a great deal with which to agree in what he said. I agreed especially with two important and simple points that he made.
First, the hon. Member for Lincoln said that the taxpayer is only prepared to continue to pay for subsidies when he can understand and see the benefits. He was speaking especially of environmental benefits. I think that that would also apply to the taxpayers' instinctive knowledge of the difficulties faced by less favoured areas such as the hill farmers about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East spoke at some length.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Lincoln said that he would ask the Secretary of State to work towards making the schemes more understandable. I am sure that everyone would agree with that, although I disagreed with his argument about the satellite. I would have thought that, these days, not only could the satellite spot a 6 ft strip, but it could spot the rabbits running along the 6 ft strip.
At one end of the subsidy debate are many of my constituents who are farmers in west Lancashire, which is an exceptionally rich growing area. They tell me, when I meet them, that all they wish to do is to do what they do best—to grow or to raise food. They point out that an area of 15 per cent. set-aside means 15 per cent. less employment, 15 per cent. less farm machinery bought for that activity and 15 per cent. less fertiliser—that might be a good thing—or seed or whatever, and all the multiplier effects of that cut on the general economy. They do not, and cannot, see the sense in it.
In a country that still imports a vast amount of its food —I acknowledge the fact that we cannot grow satsumas, but I would have thought that that was an unfortunate choice of fruit—the taxpayer can be excused for believing that he or she is in a mad world, where he or she is paying for farmers not to farm, and growers not to grow. In a world where half the population is underfed, the equation is even harder for them to bear.
Of course, we are economically sophisticated in this place and we fully understand the economic processes that allow millions of people to starve while we pay food producers not to produce. We know, unlike our electorate, the sheer economic stupidity of trying to square our capacity with other people's need. The people are, after all, silly innocents who think that high production or overproduction should result in lower prices for basic foodstuffs. They imagine that increased efficiency in production for a single European market and for export beyond that market should improve the lot of the fanner and remove his need for so much protection and subsidy.
In their innocence, the people of Britain will make great sacrifices so that the economies of countries struggling to find markets and to protect subsistence farming can survive, little appreciating the western need to grind them down through a general agreement on tariffs and trade which seems to me to be neatly arrived at to protect advanced economies.
I am tempted to adapt the famous remark of Bertolt Brecht that the people indeed are so silly in these matters that it is about time Parliament abolished the people and elected another.
I am in danger of getting tragic over this and missing some of the nitty-gritty points that I want to make about the way in which we shuffle money about to preserve producers in this, that and the other sector of European agriculture, and about the way in which we prevent the French or the Spanish getting one over on us, but of course I have to play that game too.
I note from the documents before us that we continue to support tobacco growing with subsidies while we are taxing tobacco consumption heavily on the grounds, I presume, of health protection as well as supporting the Treasury. We support tobacco production to the extent of 3.5 million ecu a day—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East gave the figure in real money earlier.
I know that the European regime still spends large amounts of money intervening to protect the wine-growing industry. Whereas in north America grape juice, as a fruit juice drink, rivals blackcurrant juice and grapefruit juice on every supermarket shelf, it is very difficult to find it in this country—I am not so sure about other European countries. That is mentioned in the documents and I am grateful for that. It seems to me that that is one major and positive way in which we could move forward.
We read of mountains of fruit destroyed or left to rot in Europe—15 per cent. of peaches and nectarines withdrawn, 1 million tonnes of apples this year, huge mountains of surplus lemons in Spain, Portugal and Italy. You may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you read the newspaper The European, that last year it published a dramatic, huge colour photograph of what appeared to be a sky view of a range of mountains. It was in fact a range of apples being shovelled together by bulldozers to be burnt and destroyed. It was one of the most morally and economically disgusting pictures that one might see.
It would be easy for us to say, "a plague on all this", scrap the system of support and subsidy and ignore all the multifarious problems of the different sectors of the agricultural economy that must be considered while we are waiting for that system to be destroyed. I want to mention one which may seem small, but which is important to my constituency and perhaps others. In my constituency, many growers face ruin in spite of all those eleborate systems of support.
Last night, I received a phone call from a lettuce grower, Mr. Baxter, who has 12,000 dozen lettuces ready for cutting. At this time of year, he would normally cut 500 boxes—6,000 to 8,000 lettuces—a day. He sells through brokers right across the country. At present, he can sell nothing and will probably have to trash his crop because Spanish iceberg lettuces are flooding the market, particularly the Liverpool market in the case of the north west, at £1 a box. They are even being given away before they go off.
As a box costs about 60p and transport, even within the United Kingdom, costs £1.10, Mr. Baxter understandably cannot believe that that is happening to him and his colleagues in the trade without an unofficial subsidy helping the Spanish producers. Because he is losing his crop, he in turn must cancel his orders for the boxes, which are also made in my constituency, in an important factory that employs many people. When he telephoned the factory to say, "I am terribly sorry about this, I am embarrassed but I must cancel my order", the secretary who took the call said that she was not surprised as that had happened time and again recently.
This is the first year in some 20 years that Mr. Baxter has been unable to sell his crop. As the Minister of State represents an agricultural area not far from mine and probably similar in richness, he may have heard similar complaints from growers. Will he undertake to investigate lettuce dumping to see whether allegations of improper subsidy by Spain are true?

Mr. Jack: May I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks straight away? If he can provide me with concrete evidence from Mr. Baxter and other growers in the area, we shall look at that claim and any others raised in this debate about unfair state aids.

Mr. Pickthall: I am grateful to the Minister of State for that intervention and I shall convey what he says to Mr. Baxter immediately.
It is not pleasant to hear, time and again, sectors of the industry complaining bitterly that other Europeans are not obeying the rules and stealing a march on the poor British, who naturally always obey the rules. It is even less pleasant to hear Europhobes in the House converting those

complaints into what is sometimes a very saleable xenophobia. Although most of the farmers whom I represent welcome the European Union and the opportunities of the single European market, they have persistent nagging anxieties about the unevenness within the Union in the use and abuse of subsidy.
A consistent complaint in recent years has been about the power of big superstore chains to control prices, constantly driving down farmers' margins while not noticeably lowering prices for consumers. Any attempt by farmers to resist that process is immediately countered by the superstores' ability to switch their buying to elsewhere in Europe. Farmers suspect that that ability, for example on the part of the Dutch in the case of cabbage, to undercut British growers' prices so systematically cannot always be achieved through greater efficiency alone.
Mr. Baxter also tells me that at least one superstore chain, which formerly switched to English lettuce in May, will not do so this year. A simple change in timing of the switch to British produce can cripple the industry. Two years ago, the big stores did the same to tomato growers, immensely damaging them.
In the Select Committee's investigations into sea fisheries and the poultry industry, we have met persistent complaints about the rules being bent or even framed to favour the French or German industries—for example, in the size and make-up of battery hen cages. It is important that such accusations be taken up as swiftly as possible by MAFF and either promptly and clearly disproved or, if proved, rapidly tackled in Europe. It is depressing to hear those accusations, which may sometimes be myths, float around and gather strength and influence.
Yesterday, we were lobbied by the Small Farmers' Association which, in canvassing its interests, asked some of the right questions about the CAP and subsidies. It put forward three basic proposals: first, a ceiling or cap of £50,000 on the total amount of subsidy which a single farming business can receive in a year; secondly, within that, all subsidy payments to be tiered or modulated; and, thirdly, environmental premiums of an extra 10 per cent. for minimum use of pesticides and nitrogen and an extra 30 per cent. for organic farming.
I do not necessarily agree with the figures, which may have been put forward for debate rather than as concrete amounts. I do not even necessarily believe in the precise methods proposed, but I do believe that the association's underlying argument warrants attention. It says that:
the only JUSTIFICATION for the huge expense of the CAP is that it should keep people on the land. The original purpose of the CAP was to ensure a decent livelihood for farmers, unfortunately no-one foresaw that the price levels necessary to maintain the average farmer were unnecessarily high for the larger ones. Over the years the smallest have dropped out and the ambitious have grown steadily bigger. The point has now been reached where 80 per cent. of subsidies are going to just 20 per cent. of farmers —the largest ones…This situation is not sustainable.
The association fears that the impetus of the CAP is to bring about the gobbling up of smaller units by larger ones, with a consequent diminution of farming opportunities and the work force.
I fear that the abolition of minimum terms for tenancies will accelerate the process in the medium and long terms. I urge the Secretary of State to consider carefully before following the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union down that road, which could be catastrophic for many tenant farmers in the future.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: May I offer some comfort to the hon. Gentleman and make it clear that not all farming or country organisations support the Government's proposals on tenancy. The Farmers Union of Wales and the young farmers federation in Wales are strongly opposed to the package proposed by the Government and believe that we still need a minimum term.

Mr. Pickthall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. I knew that the Farmers Union of Wales and the regional branch of the NFU in the north west were opposed to it. Many farmers in my constituency oppose it and have been here to lobby my hon. Friends and me on the issue.
It must be right gradually to remove subsidy from production and to ease the process by paying farmers as, for want of a better phrase, "environmental managers" responsible for keeping Britain a decent place to inhabit and, hopefully, for reversing the environmental damage created by some aspects of farming. In that respect, the removal of assistance or grant to recreate hedgerows is important in my area and the removal of grant for maintaining dry-stone walls is important to the Lake District, where I spend a great deal of time.
Will the Secretary of State, in her busy schedule, take time to look at the problems being created in areas like mine by the existence of the green belt? I do not complain about its existence—I am delighted that it is there. The Secretary of State may say that, like Wales, it is someone else's job. But when the Government decided to force local authorities to insist on planning permission applications from many small businesses operating in or on the edge of green belt, they caused what is about to become an economic calamity in my area.
Green belt planning regulations have threatened the closure of dozens of small enterprises. Ironically, these small enterprises were set up by members of the farming community who were trying to diversify into other areas, such as horticultural transport—hauliers wanting to garage their wagons, or centre their enterprises on old barns or the backs of houses in the middle of nowhere. That has created huge economic problems in areas where there is no alternative work. In fact, it might lead to a reduction in employment, especially in farming areas.
In closing, I ask the Secretary of State to talk to the Department of the Environment about the problems faced by legitimate agriculture-related industries in and around green belt.

Mr. Robert Jackson: The agricultural chapter of the enlargement agreement with Austria and the Scandinavians has an interesting element of which I believe the House should take notice. It could contain the seeds of something very important for the future, and I urge the Government to build upon it in agricultural negotiations in the years ahead.
Norway, Austria and Finland subsidise their national agriculture to an even greater extent than the common agricultural policy subsidises the agriculture of the Union, and Sweden's agricultural policy has also been relatively highly protected and subsidised. As part of the transitional arrangements for Norwegian, Finnish and Austrian

agriculture, it has been agreed that those countries may pay national aids to their farmers for the first four years of their membership of the Union.
There are also special arrangements for areas north of the 62nd parallel which will allow national payments to support farmers, with production ceilings based on historical levels of production. I understand that these arrangements will be reviewed after 10 years, but there is no doubt that the countries with Arctic agriculture will wish them to continue indefinitely.
The Scandinavian and Austrian enlargement thus includes explicit provision for national income aids to farmers linked to controls on output. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) that this is the direction in which we should aim to develop the CAP in general in the years ahead.
The trend is there already, in the arrangements for set-aside with compensation to producers, and in the arrangements which allow national support for environmental measures related to agriculture. But compared with the developments I am advocating, the problem with the set-aside measures is that they are still funded from the Community budget, while the problem with the national environmental measures is that their scope is still far too limited.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, if we have national aids, the French will outbid us all the time and so disadvantage our farmers?

Mr. Jackson: I want to develop the argument, and I will return to the perfectly fair point raised by my hon. Friend. Obviously, measures of control will be required in any system of national aids. The fact is that the European Union has not yet faced up to the need to establish a proper regime for national aids to agriculture. I think that is the point that my hon. Friend is making.
This issue has been referred to already in this debate. Brussels seems to be incapable of reacting quickly enough to illegal national aids like those referred to by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), who referred to the pig sector, and the illegal aid which the French have introduced into that area.
It is a highly cyclical industry, as is the case with lettuces, and a permanent advantage can be obtained if an illegal subsidy enables a national group of producers to ride out the bottom of the cycle. It is very important that there be a proper system of control of national aids, both in the existing CAP and under the future arrangements which I am advocating.
The rationale behind the common agricultural policy is the securing of a common market for agricultural products throughout the European Union. That is an important interest for the Union, and it must continue to be safeguarded. But it has long been apparent that the common price support mechanism as the central instrument for a common market in agriculture is becoming increasingly obsolete. The problems of the price support system are notorious. I do not disagree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) or the hon. Member for Lancashire, West in spelling out the problems.
Our food prices to consumers are high by world standards, which helps to undermine general European competitiveness in global markets. We are incurring very



high budgetary costs for the storage and disposal of surpluses. The system has created a flow of transfer payments which has long been inequitable in the case of Britain and Germany, and which are becoming increasingly unacceptable to the Germans, if not to us.
Within the Union, these arrangements are coming under increasing budgetary constraints. At the same time, they are also subject to international restrictions through GATT, which I guess will continue to be tightened.
That means that, if the non-commercial or the less commercial sectors of European agriculture are to survive, they will have to do so on the basis of direct subsidies of one kind or another—for which GATT expressly provides. Provided that the output of the sectors is restricted so that they cannot displace genuinely commercial production, there is no reason why such direct payments should not be made from national budgets.
To ensure that the common market in agriculture remains open, there will have to be a closer regulation of such arrangements by the European Union than exists presently. But it would be absolutely in line with the principle of subsidiarity, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln referred, that there should be national aids to non-commercial agriculture reflecting different national priorities and preferences.
Needless to say, such a development would be of great benefit to the United Kingdom, whose vast net contribution to the European budget over many years—amounting to tens of billions of pounds—mainly reflects the imbalance of transfers under the common agricultural policy.
I emphasise that I do not believe that this policy would be disadvantageous to British farmers if—I know that this is a big "if"—it were designed properly. Much of British farming is capable of standing on its own feet commercially, not only in competition with the commercial sectors of continental agriculture but also in competition with commercial producers in other parts of the world.
But Britain also has small farmers, and farmers in areas of natural beauty. In every part of Britain, there is a countryside environment that we wish to protect. A deal which enables us to fund these worthy non-commercial objectives from our national budget, while controlling their output on a European Union basis, is perfectly consistent with the continued progress of British commercial agriculture. I suspect that a change of this kind would not be unwelcome to British farmers. If I have properly understood the discussion paper entitled "Real Choices" recently released by the NFU, that is the conclusion to which the NFU is coming.
But such a change would be greatly feared by many producers on the continent. That is why, in the present dispute about the size of the blocking minority in the Council, it might be worth remembering that, in the European Union, Britain is a revisionist state whose interests will generally be best served if it is easier, rather than more difficult, to outvote recalcitrant minorities.
Some hon. Members may find it surprising, but I believe that, in developing the common agricultural policy in the direction that I am advocating, it may be that we can make common cause with the French. Of course, there is a huge amount of historical baggage of Anglo-French conflict in this area. For some reason that I have never been able to

understand properly, small farmers in France have believed that they benefit from European agricultural support arrangements which, as the hon. Member for Lancashire, West said, have really worked to the advantage of France's large commercial producers.
It seems that French small farmers and their political spokesmen have believed that they will get a better deal from a common agricultural policy based on price supports managed from Brussels than from a system of income aids managed from Paris. But I believe that recent developments in the CAP and the GATT are beginning to shift perceptions in la France profonde.
Certainly the Maastricht referendum was largely a vote of no confidence in Brussels by France's rural areas. Meanwhile, the French political leadership is beginning to recognise that it is inevitable that European farm price levels will converge with world markets, and that some system of direct payments is therefore desirable.
The main problem will be to persuade the French leaders that those payments should be funded on a national rather than a Union basis. We may be helped by the fact that, although the Germans want to protect their agriculture —which is not commercial in world terms—they also know that Germany cannot continue to sustain and increase its net liabilities to the Union's budget. We must make it clear, meanwhile, that there can be no question of reducing Britain's budgetary abatement.
The enlargement of the Union to include Austria and Scandinavia will be followed, quite possibly before the end of the decade, by a further enlargement towards the east. Each of the Visegrad four—Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia—has substantial and relatively under-developed agricultural sectors. In Poland there is a marked fragmentation into smaller units.
Elsewhere, communism has left a legacy of large-scale, under-capitalised farm structures, such as those which the Union is currently absorbing in the five eastern lander of Germany. It seems inconceivable that the Visegrad countries can be assimilated into a common agricultural policy based on price supports. The only way that we will be able to absorb their important agricultural sectors will be on the basis that I am advocating for the Union as a whole—a low level of Union price support convergent with world prices, combined with the close Union-level regulation of national aids to farmers.
Britain should be encouraging the European Union to face up to the issue of national aids in agriculture. It is often argued that the so-called "repatriation" of the CAP would be inconsistent with a common market in agricultural products. But that is simply not so—there is express provision for national aids in the Community treaty in articles XCII to XCIV, which admit the possibility of national aids in certain circumstances, provided that they should not
adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest".
The GATT arrangements also make explicit provision for non-distorting income support measures in agriculture.
The legal framework exists for the policy that I am advocating. Economic common sense has always pointed towards it; and now the balance of social and political forces is pressing us towards it.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Debates such as today's are always of special interest, because we achieve some consensus across the Chamber. There have been a number of contributions from both sides with which I have sympathy, particularly those of the hon. Members for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle). One reason is that, in a sense, we are all in a minority today, because we represent rural districts and are conscious that many other colleagues who represent the majority areas of urban electorate are not sympathetic to our considerations. That may be an important theme running through today's considerations.
I have recently celebrated—if that is the right word—the anniversary of my first appearance in the House 20 years ago—

Mr. Simon Burns: That is no cause for celebration.

Mr. Tyler: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
I first entered the House in 1974. I have been here slightly longer this time than when I previously came, when I entered the House on 1 March 1974 and departed in the autumn. The political landscape has dramatically changed in the countryside in that period.
Some 20 years ago, the Church of England was considered to be the Tory party on its knees, and 20 years ago the National Farmers Union was considered to be the Tory party on its hands and knees. That has all changed, and I suppose that I should pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) for his single-handed efforts in making both those transformations.
Today, large areas of rural Britain are no longer represented by the Conservative party and feel that it has neglected them, as was evident in the county council elections last year. As the House will recall, the Liberal Democrats were left in charge of four county councils, and provided the lead in another 10. The Tories were left with a rump of one. The political landscape reflects an important change of attitude among the people in the countryside. The certainties that have been removed in that period were summed up in the certainty that was previously attached to the common agricultural policy, but has now come tumbling down.
When the then Minister came to the House in July 1992, he told us that he had achieved a great deal in Brussels. He said that he had put the CAP on a secure footing and that it would cut its costs, complexities and surpluses, and yet still leave farmers with improved competitiveness and improved standards of living.
I think that, 18 months later, we have heard evidence in every speech today to show that people recognise that that was not a solution—it was but a transition. It may be necessary to unravel it to a considerable extent if we are to achieve the sort of healthy economic countryside referred to by many hon. Members today. I noticed that the Minister said that the reform package was settling in. The contributions of Conservative Members, let alone those of Opposition Members, show that many of us feel that it is not so much a matter of settling in as of setting out major changes.
It is unsustainable for British agriculture and the British economy as a whole to maintain that deal for any length of time. I am convinced, and have long been convinced—I

said so at the time of the then Minister's statement—that a tremendous backlash is developing among the taxpayers of the more urban population to the cost of the ill directed, ill targeted investment in agriculture. That backlash is building up to a such level that the policy simply cannot be sustained.
The elements that are most visible to the public through the media are the set-aside payments. I think that it was the hon. Member for Lincoln who said in a previous debate that the £840 million—the estimate at the time—being invested in set-aside did not bear cheerful comparison with the cuts being made in the modest budgets of the sectors that he mentioned today. If hon. Members were to tell their constituents that they were asking for a 28 per cent. pay rise, but intended to set aside 15 per cent. of their correspondence and leave it unanswered, that would not be considered productive or good value for money.
Today's debate is traditionally the opportunity to review the past year. It is sad that we have not had a major agricultural debate for so long. There is clearly a perception that the way in which the Government are implementing the CAP—quite apart from the CAP itself —is making the more isolated farming and rural communities comparatively less well off over a period. That is nowhere more apparent than in hill farming regions.
I make no bones about the fact that I am not a farmer, but I live in a hill farming area, and the majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends come from hill farming areas. I mentioned that fact in my speech to a lunch of the Guild of Agricultural Journalists today, and said that those areas were less-favoured areas. The audience thought that I was making a political comment—I leave it to the House to judge whether that was so. What I said was factually correct.
The way in which the Government approached the decision has been taken by the industry—not just this sector—as indicative of a false sense of priorities. The original justification for hill livestock compensatory allowances was not to put money in the pockets of specific farmers, but to enable fanning to continue in landscapes that would otherwise be uneconomic. The HLCAs were deliberately introduced to bridge a gap, and were precisely the sort of target investment to which the hon. Member for Wantage referred. However, they fell victim to the Chancellor's axe, whereas other ill targeted general expenditure in other sectors did not.
Without question, the less-favoured areas account for some of the most important landscapes and ecological and environmental habitats in the United Kingdom. The public, even the urban majority, want to invest in just such a scheme. Not only do the vulnerable rural communities in our country deserve that support, but the nation wants to give it. That is why many of us feel that the policy adopted showed that the Government have their priorities wrong. Any dispassionate study would soon show that the true position in the hills is not one of massive increases in income over recent years. Of course it is true that LFA farmers' incomes have risen, but they started from a very low point and are only now returning to the levels of 1988–89. In 1992–93, nearly a third of the full-time LFA hill farmers with livestock in England had a net income of less than £5,000 a year.
In Scotland, the situation is just as bad. I was given the figures by the National Farmers Union of Scotland, representatives of which met some of my right hon. and


hon. Friends today. If anything, the situation is more critical in Scotland, where hill farming accounts for about 90 per cent. of the agricultural land. Even after increases this year, however, Scottish hill farm incomes still averaged only £13,000. That is insufficient for reinvestment in farm businesses and for maintaining the economy of the LFAs. What is more, the extra money that is coming in is having to be used both to service debt and to replace aging machinery.
We know that there have been some improvements in the past 12 months, principally because of the one-off change in the green currency, not because of the HLCAs or because of any targeted investment in hill areas. Black Wednesday was directly responsible for the change; unless the Minister can announce today that there will be a regular black Wednesday each year—that would cause some consternation if the City were still operating at this time of night—we cannot expect it to happen again.
Other factors have also affected the hill farming economy in the United Kingdom. The fall in the value of sterling meant that sales of light-weight lambs to France and Spain rose and inflated stock prices well above the norm. But since last August, an increase in sterling has meant that lamb prices have dropped again.
Then there was the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in some parts of eastern Europe; that meant that the Italians started purchasing bull beef from other European Union states, especially this country. That too had a considerable effect, mitigating some of the difficulties confronting our farmers. We cannot expect that to happen all the time, either—it would be very depressing if it did.
Given those special factors, we cannot expect hill farmers to be able to benefit again as they have done in recent months.
My principal concern is not just this decision itself but the fact that it seems to be indicative of how the Government approach the whole future direction of the CAP: not the more effective direction of investment, to which the hon. Member for Lincoln and other hon. Members have referred. This seems to be a Treasury-driven policy to get its hands on what it is easy to get them on—farm conservation grants, HLCAs, waste water grants and the Agricultural Development Advisory Service. All these cuts have the Treasury's fingerprints on them.
I hope that Conservative Members will be stroppy in this debate. If they are, they will be helping the Minister, who wants more muscle in her discussions with the Treasury. We, the minority who represent rural areas, must ensure that, when the Minister indulges in her arm wrestling with the Chancellor, we are behind her telling her to be stroppy.

Mr. David Nicholson: I do not propose to be stroppy, either with the hon. Gentleman or with my right hon. Friend. He will recall that I intervened in his speech a year ago on this same point. He, I and, I believe, my right hon. Friend will all agree that farming in the upland areas needs continued support, so that it can be done in an environmentally sensitive way. The hon. Gentleman is paying due regard to the complexities of this matter, but I ask him to bear in mind the many, and increasingly environment-related, subsidies that are available to farmers.

Mr. Tyler: I understand that point, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's general support. A study of the budgets available for what I call selective help of that sort shows that they are minute—they are chickenfeed—compared with the huge sums put into area aid and the set-aside scheme. The danger is that, if there is a backlash, it will be against all forms of support, and that would be extremely dangerous to the whole industry.
Hon. Members have already referred, rightly, to the compatibility of the CAP with GATT. I listened with great interest to Sir Leon Brittan when he spoke via a television link to the NFU AGM recently. In his first few sentences, he said that he was convinced that the general outline of the CAP package was entirely compatible with GATT, but the whole of the rest of his talk was devoted to identifying areas in which the CAP needed further reform if it was to be compatible with GATT and to achieve the sort of objectives that Sir Leon felt European taxpayers wanted.
This is of critical importance to us all. If the main driving force in Brussels, where I have been for the past 48 hours, is to continue improving the CAP far beyond the state reached in 1992, it will be disastrous if we talk about the status quo settling in. The last thing we want is that it should settle in. We must improve on it.
I do not know the contents of the report prepared for the Commission, to which the Minister referred earlier. She apparently does not know the contents either, although it is extraordinary that such a document could be produced at such a high level for the Commission with no input from the British Ministry of Agriculture—or, indeed, from Britain. Someone, somewhere, must know what is in the document. I hope that the Minister will be able to produce it soon.
In any event, if the document says that the answer is repatriation, I must point out that there are major dangers in that. Fulll repatriation of farming policy may be politically seductive in the short term, but in the longer term it could be damaging and dangerous to British agriculture, to the environment of our countryside and to the economy.
Under repatriation, who would be responsible for ensuring that member states did not move even further the boundaries that they have been asked to adopt for their subsidiarity? Who would be responsible for future GATT negotiations? It was difficult enough to stand up to the Americans in the last GATT talks, but if there is no central European Union strategy in future, what will happen? Would we have to have a whole army of Euro-snoopers to make sure that the increased subsidiarity did not wholly undermine the rules of the single market?
British farmers in particular might find themselves in extreme difficulties. Our holdings are generally larger—hence, proportionate to the electorate, the farming community is smaller in our country than it is in most member states. As our farmers know to their cost, that could mean their having a much reduced political impact. Secondly—this would have a lot to do with public opinion —subsidiarity could easily push up the costs of regulation and control. This has happened in the past. There might be a corresponding reduction in the costs of other member states which take these matters much less seriously, however.
I suspect that all hon. Members receive a great deal of correspondence about animal welfare issues. I suggested to the Minister a few weeks ago that the pressure from the


—chiefly urban—public to increase standards in this area would increase costs, thus making the competitive position of British producers even more difficult.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the consequences of repatriating our agricultural policy would be the ensuing damaging effect on animal welfare? We would then have little influence over our EC partners, whose standards are much lower than our own.

Mr. Tyler: That is a fair point, and a useful warning, of which I hope the Minister will take note.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Tyler: I want to make progress, and I am conscious that other Members want to speak.
Other countries of the European Union are investing to a very considerable extent on the border of support systems: in marketing, in forms of assistance of all sorts —this has been particularly true of horticulture, to which several references have been made—in pigs and, indeed, in potatoes. Those forms of support at the national level and at the regional level in most other member states reflect yet again the importance that these states already attach to the promotion of agriculture.
They do so in a way that I doubt would be found easy by our Minister, who has to deal with a more urban country. There is a grave danger that, if subsidiarity is pushed to its logical position—if we totally repatriate whole elements of the policy—the uneven playing field will be made a great deal more uneven, that it will be tilted even further to the advantage of our competitors.
Where do we go from here? This direction is something that I and my party have made very clear. I was interested in the Minister's comments. Clearly she has not been briefed by Conservative central office. Our party documents contain great detail on these matters. We have so much policy that it seems that central office has a whole team permanently poring through it. I am delighted with this interest—and I say so as someone who was a Member of the House at a time when such views were not taken nearly so seriously.
I have very little doubt that, when the Agriculture Ministers get round the table again, as they will have to do within the next two or three years, to review the success of the common agricultural policy package and its compatibility with the general agreement on tariffs and trade, the points that have been raised in this debate will have to be uppermost in their minds. That being the case, those of us who come from rural areas must try to indicate the criteria by which we shall assess the proposals.
It is clear that there will have to be a strong element of decoupling, as most hon. Members will recognise. But the decoupling must be used to promote a sustainable, richly diverse, viable rural economy. Indeed, we must recognise that diversities within the United Kingdom, and not just in relation to other member states, will have to be sustained. I hope that, as a result of the National Farmers Union initiatives of this week and, indeed, of our having a different Minister, it will be possible to achieve more consensus with regard to these objectives.
Many people are now talking about a common rural policy. This is something that my party and I were promoting many moons ago. Now, it is a truism that such a policy is desirable. Clearly the objective must be the

protection and enhancement of rural communities, as well as food production. Agriculture will, of course, play a core, but not an overwhelming, role. In these circumstances, we must ensure that the public can see clearly what they are getting for their money, in terms of environmental, social and employment benefits, as well as of production.
In debates such as this one, contributions from farmers are always welcome. We have heard from that quarter today that help might take the form of the provision of access or the replacement and renovation of landscape detail—stone walls, hedgerows, Cornish banks, and so on —or full extensification. I share the view of the hon. Member for Lincoln about help for those who are already promoting organic husbandry. Such people may even be propagating rare breeds. All such projects are entitled to support.
But the essential point is that the farmer must be given an element of choice. It is not right that he should be forced into a particular type of husbandry. There should be a menu approach, as in the pilot Baden Wurtemberg scheme in Germany—the MEKA system. That system has the huge advantage that it provides a degree of continuity at the regional as well as the national level, and relative security for the industry.
I should like to refer briefly to the unsung issue of the afternoon—milk marketing. It is very significant that not until the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), a former Minister of Agriculture, raised this issue did the Minister spend any time on it. It is quite extraordinary that it has taken so long to digest the milk marketing boards' proposals—to the extent, it seems, that the proposals for the residuary body were not prepared and ready at the time of the original submission.
Setting that matter to one side for a moment, I have to say that it is quite extraordinary that we should now be told that those producers who have signed up with Milk Marque will have a cooling-off period—they will have time to break the contract—whereas those who have signed up with anybody else will find that they are locked in, or, according to the Minister, that legislation may be brought forward to allow them to break contract. Either way, it is an extraordinary situation. This seems to my hon. Friends and me to be yet another attempt to hamper what could be the last real chance of achieving a power block of producers in the market, with a real producer co-operative.
I should like to give voice to a new concern—a matter that has been drawn to my attention within the last 24 hours. Representatives of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service seem to be entering the fray, taking up a position between the competitors for the new contracts. ADAS is an executive agency, but the buck must stop with someone, and presumably that person is the Minister, who is responsible to the House of Commons.
I have been told that ADAS officials have appeared on the same platform as people setting up milk selling groups. It seems to me that this constitutes a withdrawal from the position that ADAS has always adopted—the provision of unbiased advice on a non-commercial basis. I hope very much that, at the end of the debate, the Minister will be able to assure us that there is no new question mark over the impartiality of ADAS officials. This matter is causing great concern in milk producing areas all around the country, and especially in my area of Devon and Cornwall.
It is clear that there will be drastic changes in the CAP. It was clear during my discussions in Brussels, and it is clear every time the Minister comes to the House, as it is


clear in the contributions of hon. Members on all sides. But reorientation of this huge investment in rural areas, to ensure that in future it is selectively targeted to support the most vulnerable sectors, communities and landscapes, will require the attention of all of us. I hope that, to this end, the Minister will build on consensus, and not simply occupy the position of a puppet on a Treasury string.

Sir Roger Moate: I apologise to the House for having missed the opening speeches, especially that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I should like to take this opportunity of recording my admiration for the very robust way in which my right hon. Friend is leading British agricultural policy, and I thank the Minister of State for the robust way in which he has been helping the fruit industry.
I am very glad that I did not miss the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), although he—sensible chap—is missing mine as he is temporarily out of the Chamber. His eloquent presentation of the argument for the repatriation of much of agricultural policy was music to my ears. For many years such a speech in this House would have been regarded as sheer heresy when uttered by someone like my hon. Friend who is supposed to be a passionate believer in the European cause. How refreshing it is that, these days, we can have a sensible, open debate without people being accused of being anti-marketeers or pro-marketeers.
My hon. Friend is clearly right to say that the price support mechanism and the intervention system are obsolete and need to be replaced. He is clearly right to suggest that as the Community enlarges and other nations such as Norway and the Visegrad Four are brought in, no one in their right mind would refuse regions in those countries with very special needs the right to sustain agriculture in those regions.
If that argument is to be upheld, however, we shall have to move to different form of support. I think that my hon. Friend suggested that we should have to move to a proper regime for national aids. This answers the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). Already we are seeing real threats to many sectors of agriculture —particularly horticulture, with which I shall deal in a moment. It is clear that the system is not working. In a European Union of perhaps 20 nations we shall have to have mechanisms to prevent distortions of intra-Community trade.
The Minister of State, admirably, leapt to his feet to say that of course he would vigorously challenge any evidence of unfair state subsidies. But very often the distortions of the market are not caused by overt state subsidies or even by covert state subsidies. Very often, dumping can be carried out by commercial organisations trading simply for cash flow. If they do it at a particularly vulnerable moment, when another country is marketing its product, it can be extremely damaging.
The European Community, or Brussels itself, will have to move away from being a great machine for recirculating money; it will have to become a more sensitive organisation, trying to monitor trade distortions within the Community and operating an orderly marketing system. It

will not be only the British who will suffer if that does not happen; the Spanish and other nations whom we sometime accuse of damaging the markets will also be affected.
The points made so far in the debate about the philosophy of the CAP underline the importance of the report that has been much mentioned today—the famous report that appears to have been suppressed by Brussels bureaucrats. The publication of such a report would contribute to a healthy debate about the future of agriculture. We need that report, and presumably we have paid for it, or part of it, so we are entitled to have it.
I have some of the press releases of the time. The defence in Brussels of its non-publication was:
There could be as many as 100 studies going on at the moment … These reports are ten a penny.
I bet that they are not 10 a penny; this one took two years, was produced by 10 leading agricultural economists and must have cost a great deal of money. It seems to be an important report.
I will also quote some of the comments in the newspapers:
The two-year study concluded that the CAP could no longer be justified, and said farm prices should be left to fall to world market levels, with subsidies, import barriers and production quotas all abolished. The result would be cheaper food in the shops, with every British family saving at least £530 as artificially high prices tumbled.".
Another article stated:
According to Professor Kenneth Thomson … one of the report's authors, it would also save British and other European consumers about £37.5 billion per year in food prices".
The report proposes renationalising agriculture and passing back to nation states the obligation—an important condition—to pay farmers direct income support and other national supports. That is extremely important and is music to our ears. Many of us have been calling for the repatriation of most agricultural policy for a long time. We may be right or wrong, but we should be debating the issue. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that that report is out in the open and published very soon.
I shall be brief as I know other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall concentrate my remarks on horticulture. The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) talked about one of his constituents having to destroy a large quantity of lettuces. I speak not for lettuces, but for apples in particular, and other horticultural production from Kent. We might be talking about lettuces—or apples, as we do in my part of the world and other parts of United Kingdom —but many horticultural products are equally vulnerable. Something has to be done in the near future, not just in the interests of the British horticultural industry, but ultimately for other horticultural interests throughout the European Community.
I particularly welcome the report that my hon. Friend the Minister of State instituted—the survey of horticulture. I understand that it is very wide ranging and will cover all aspects of horticulture. I hope that my hon Friend will beef up the report, because it comes at a crucial time and is of tremendous importance. We have very high expectations of it. I hope that my hon. Friend is aware of that and will deliver an analysis of the problem and a range of answers.
One of the key criteria on which that report works is
market co-ordination, matching volume and continuity of supply to requirements".
That is a magnificent objective, but what on earth is the point of having a British study trying to match continuity of supply to requirements if virtually every horticultural product from Britain can be challenged and its marketing


distorted overnight by floods of imports from overseas, whether from other members of the European Community or from outside Europe?
We need to deal with excessive imports into the United Kingdom. It is no good saying that we must improve our marketing arrangements, as has happened with apples, improve our research and development to the point of perfection and do everything possible to sell our lettuces, blackcurrants, apples or pears, if we cannot prevent a sudden flood of imports into the market just when we are trying to market those products. That is the crucial point.
I return to apples—the product that concerns us most in Kent at the moment. As hon. Members will know, a few weeks ago we had a splendid lobby of apple growers at the House of Commons. They did a wonderful job and put a very strong case. The price of quality Cox's apples has dropped by nearly a third since last year and they are facing a serious threat to their livelihood. We tabled an early-day motion and hon. Members from all parts of the House signed it enthusiastically.
There is tremendous understanding and support for the English apple grower. The English apple is a super high quality product—one of the best apples in the world, if not the best. Everyone knows that the industry has done everything it can to help itself. It has paid for much of its own research and development and improved its marketing to a high level, but what is the point of all that if there is a structural surplus in the European Community, a growing world surplus and freedom to dump products on the market where our product is on sale? It requires only a small volume to kill a price.
On the other side of Westminster bridge there is an enormous advertisement for every variety of French apples, all with good Anglo-Saxon names. It is surprising how the French abandon their passionate belief in their language when it comes to marketing their apples in the United Kingdom.
In Sittingbourne in my constituency—the heart of the apple country—there is an advertisement for United States apples. At this time of year, when our apples are still coming out of store—many have been stored for a long time—we need high prices, but just at this very moment in come floods of foreign apples.
Some 20 years ago, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State who is in the business will know better than I, there used to be a sensible marketing arrangement with countries in the southern hemisphere. They did not market in our season but came in when English apples were no longer available. In the interests of all producers—they all have an interest in an orderly market, leaving markets intact and not destroying a market or their competitors—it must surely be possible, within the European Community and with our main importers from abroad, to try to engineer an agreement such as the one that applied many years ago to the southern hemisphere. If we can do it for apples, we can also do it for a range of other commodities. It will never be perfect, but orderly marketing arrangements—perhaps operated throughout the European Community—are vital.
People might say that I am concerned about apples because I am from Kent or that I am concerned only with my own backyard, but it is important that the House of Commons and the nation should understand the importance of horticulture. Today we have a debate on agriculture. We seldom have a debate on horticulture; yet its contribution to the national economy is enormous. It is one of the Britain's major industries. We are told that

agriculture contributes 1.2 per cent. of gross domestic product, but all the industries looked after by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food represent some 9 per cent. of GDP. That shows how far reaching are the implications of the agriculture industry.
Agriculture accounts for 14 per cent. of all employment. I understand that horticulture accounts for about one third of that in production terms and, I suspect, much more in employment terms. It is hard to get figures. Perhaps I can make a plea to my hon. Friend that a serious effort be made to have a proper analysis of just how many people are dependent on horticulture, because if we can understand that factor, we might get a regular and more robust defence of British interests whenever they are threatened. In my constituency alone, in which some 2,000 people are dependent on agriculture, during the summer season, some farms will each employ several hundred pickers. One can multiply that figure quite dramatically. They are employed for a few months—and pay their national insurance, just in case anybody doubts that. That income is very important for those families.
Horticulture is of tremendous importance and that is not fully understood. Some £2 billion in production comes from horticulture.

Mr. Tyler: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's argument, but having made an eloquent plea for the repatriation of the CAP he now seems to be developing a case for a common horticultural policy negotiated right through the Union. It is a good case, but one needs both.

Sir Roger Moate: Perhaps I did not express myself as clearly as I should, but in fact I am saying exactly the opposite. I do not believe in the CAP: I believe that we should have national agriculture policies controlled by the European Community within a free trading area to try to prevent market distortions. That is what we are moving to anyway and I welcome it very much. It is not easy to operate, but the present system is failing in any event. No system of protection operates efficiently. We are moving away from centralised price support systems and we should do the same in horticulure.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I presume that the hon. Gentleman means within European budgetary limits. That is, national or member state expenditure would have to be within budgetary limits set by the European Union.

Sir Roger Moate: I believe that nations could administer these policies, as they are nationally sensitive matters and are best done nationally. That is the theme that is emerging. What I am trying to say is that, in horticulture matters, there is a great international and national interest in trying to protect each sector of the market. It is easy to say, "Well, it is only £50 million or £100 million, and it might be tomatoes today or lettuces tomorrow," but every one of those sectors is important. It is all too easy to sacrifice any one of those to a competitor one day—Spain, for instance. That is a dangerous road to go down.

Mr. Ainger: rose—

Sir Roger Moate: I will not give way. I apologise, but I have spoken for longer than I intended.
It is important to emphasise the importance of horticulture and to take legitimate steps to protect our


interests, not just because of the employment factor or its high gross product, but because it is one of the highest added value factors in agriculture. We argue about the value of wheat or cereals. An acre of wheat might produce £200 or £300 while an acre of strawberries might produce £5,000, £7,000, £8,000 or £10,000 of product for UK Ltd. and generate a lot of employment. The same applies to top fruit, and right across the board. We should be wary of allowing sectors of horticulture to be undermined or destroyed. That is a good message for every member of the European Community. We should take steps to protect our home markets and home industries at the sensitive time of the season.
With regard to apples, what we are asking for will not cost money; indeed, it will save money. In my view, the intervention system must be changed. It is a great distortion and must be modified and, ultimately, eliminated. That in itself will save money. Europe has a large structural surplus. A number of varieties of apple are in serious surplus and need to be grubbed out. We are asking the Government to support a European-wide grubbing-out scheme. That is being proposed in the European Community and I hope that it will come to pass. It will pay for itself in a very short time because it will save a great deal of fruit from being wasted or taken into intervention.
I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for the support that they have given so far. I urge the strongest possible support for structural change, especially for apples, but also that we give a great deal of backing in future to studying new regimes within the European Community to prevent marketing distortions, particularly with minimum import prices for products coming into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I strongly sympathise and agree with the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate), particularly on the first half of his comments about the need to repatriate part of the CAP. I like the word "subsidiarity" in the Europe-wide context and within Britain, too, in terms of the regions. It is important that we move towards devolving as much power as we can, especially concerning the CAP.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) made quite a scathing attack on the whole of the CAP. I have had similar views, as have the general public, for decades. Indeed, when we joined the European Community, the cost of the CAP was one of the big problems. The policy was devised for France, Germany and Italy, not for British farms, which are larger and more economic and efficient than French or Italian farms.
The nonsense of the CAP seems to carry on and on in terms of its cost, the support mechanism, surpluses, the dumping of those surpluses and their effects on third world trade, and high food prices for the consumer. Its environmental effect is very damaging, because the whole thrust is on production and that has encouraged more and more intensive agriculture.
I have sat through debates in the House on reform. We talked about stabilisers in 1988. We talked about the MacSharry plan and its variations. We debated GATT and the influence that it might have on the CAP. We are on

some kind of roller coaster, in that no matter what we try to do, it seems to get more expensive by the year. I notice that, in the current reforms, the CAP will cost us £30 billion this year—£4 billion more than it did last year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East talked about set-aside and the absurdity of it. The general public cannot understand why we need to put away 5, 10 or 15 per cent. of our land and not grow anything. Environmentally, it does not help in any way. It is even questionable whether it reduces production substantially. I notice that, in the United States, which has had set-aside for decades, only some 13 per cent. of the land is efficient, because the land that is set aside is usually the poorest land and therefore the farmer will grow even more intensively to maintain his output on the rest of his land. So that for every hectare that is set aside, only one third is effective in reducing production.
The compensation amounts that are available to cereal growers for set-aside fill the general public with fury. I read a few weeks ago of subsidy payments for set-aside as high as £1 million. I presume that those farmers are millionaires. We need to find some alternative to the whole idea of set-aside.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Having made a study of the subject, I believe that only one body in the country is paid £1 million under the IACS—the Co-operative Wholesale Society.

Mr. Williams: I do not have access to my sources of information now, but about a month ago The Sunday Times quoted several people to that effect. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that a £50,000 maximum, in terms of income derived from agricultural support for any one holding, makes good sense. As was suggested earlier, that should apply to all farmers, whatever their source of subsidy—set-aside or otherwise.
Like the Government and farmers' unions, my party realises that the CAP is not appropriate to British agriculture, but we are not clear about what should replace it over five, 10 or 15 years. We know that the replacement system should sustain the rural economy and maintain farmers on their land, given the current size of holdings: we have already been through a massive amalgamation phase. The system should also contribute to the environment, helping to bring about less intensive farming and maintaining the landscape. I wish that the Government had spelt our more clearly their long-term vision of a replacement. There is probably a fair consensus that the present support mechanisms are based too much on production, and need to be based more on people and the environment.
I am no expert, but I have seen how New Zealand has moved to a free market. I am amazed that a Conservative Government should be so supportive of what must be the most rigged market in the world. Every country has its agricultural support mechanisms; the arrangements become curiouser and curiouser, and more and more complicated, with every twist and turn of every new agreement that is worked out.
A recent television feature seemed to suggest that, despite terrific fears before the introduction of the free market and real problems of adjustment to it, New Zealand's agricultural system has become attuned to the new arrangements. It is producing its food more cheaply


and efficiently than any other part of the world, developing its exports and becoming environmentally friendly by using less fertiliser and similar products.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that we should follow New Zealand's example? He must realise that one of the effects of moving in that direction was the devastation of hundreds of farms, and the driving of hundreds of farmers off the land. Is that what the hon. Gentleman proposes for this country?

Mr. Williams: I have already confessed that I am no expert. I understand, however, that those were exactly the fears that New Zealand farmers expressed before the move to a free market. There were enormous demonstrations—the kind organised by French farmers—before the changes were introduced. According to my most recent information, however, those fears have not been realised. I do not explicitly advocate such action; I am merely suggesting that we should work towards a long-term, concrete replacement for the absurd common agricultural policy. We should think about the position in 10 or 15 years' time. The CAP is unsuitable for us; it is unpopular with consumers because it means high food prices, and it is not good for the environment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The House should not shut its eyes to the New Zealand experience. We can learn lessons from it without entirely dismantling the present policy.

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the matter in context. Let me suggest a possible long-term alternative. A free-market mechanism could be backed up by a form of income support, or similar social payments, to maintain the rural population; but the largest contribution should come from farmers, whose role should be to maintain the environment. That involves an enormous amount of work.
Given the present framework in the European Community, however, I cannot see how such an arrangement is possible. That brings me back to the question of subsidiarity. The CAP needs to be devolved as far as possible to individual component states, and to the regions: Wales, for instance, should be treated differently from Scotland, and the same should apply to the various agricultural areas of Wales—horticultural, cereal-growing and grassland.
One of the major long-term alternatives to the CAP must involve the role of farmers in environmental protection. Last summer I wrote to the Welsh Office asking for a breakdown of the environmental grants now available to farmers in Wales: what were the individual schemes, and how much did they provide altogether? In the current financial year, total planned expenditure was £16.6 million; total support for the CAP in Wales is £197 million. I was surprised and pleased to learn—I could not quite believe it—that some 8 per cent. of support for agriculture in Wales is now environmental.
The Welsh Office administers a plethora of schemes —far too many, in fact. There is a range of them, involving environmentally sensitive areas such as Tir Cymen, sites of special scientific interest, management schemes and so forth. I think that it would be much wiser to amalgamate them into a single scheme as was suggested by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis).

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. May I amplify it? He said that he was surprised at the amount being spent on such policies. He should know that there is no doubt that the United Kingdom leads all the European countries in the progress that it has made within environmental farming. United Kingdom farmers and the Government can be very proud of that.

Mr. Williams: I wish that I could agree with the Parliamentary Secretary; unfortunately, I cannot.
I am pleased that the Welsh Office is showing the way to the rest of the country. According to figures from the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Government have provided a total of £43 million in environmental grants. In her opening speech, the Minister mentioned a total of £100 million in a budget of about £5 billion for agricultural support. That means that only about 2 per cent. is provided in environmental grants across the country. As I have said, I was pleased to learn that the figure in Wales was 8 per cent.
Hill farmers in my constituency have a particular problem. Their morale has been generally knocked by a second successive year of cuts in hill livestock compensatory allowances, and there is an air of despondency about the future. Farm incomes have risen, and Welsh farmers have shared in that increase—although there is a problem with the statistics; we do not know which figures to believe. The NFU tells me that the average for less-favoured areas throughout England and Wales is between £13,000 and £14,000, and quotes the Ministry as its source; ministerial statements, however, mention £19,000 a year.
The NFU branch in Llandovery, in my constituency, has 127 members, 51 of whom are on family credit—a staggering 40 per cent. of farmers in the area. The average age of hill farmers in Wales is 57, and young people see no future in hill farming. They drift from the land to other professions and to the towns because of a lack of confidence in the future of hill farming. I hate to think who will be managing the rich landscape of Snowdonia, the Brecon Beacons, Carmarthen and Ceredigion in 10 or 20 years' time. The hill farmers' role in maintaining that landscape should be recognised.
I read a briefing earlier today about the Lake District which stated that in 1991 3 million people visited Cumbria, generating £470 million for the local economy. The rich landscape that those people come to see and admire has not come naturally but has been created and maintained by farmers in the region.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Many people go to the Sellafield visitors centre.

Mr. Williams: I do not think that that industrial plant helps the landscape.
Hill farmers work in the tourist regions of Snowdonia and mid Wales and we should maintain them in their profession.
I have been certain for the past 20 years that the common agricultural policy is the wrong way to support agriculture and I think that 90 per cent. of the British public agree with me. As a society we need to develop a clearer vision of the future—that goes for the political parties and farmers' union—and of where farming should be at in 10 or 15 years. Support for agriculture should be based not on production but on people and the environment.

Mr. James Paice: I declare an interest. As stated in the Register of Members' Interests, I am a director of a farmers' co-operative and I have a very small farming interest that, even in Portugal, would be recognised as such.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) responded earlier to my intervention about the milk marketing board and the penetration of the British produce market by imported dairy produce. He laid the blame for that penetration on the quotas, which were introduced in 1994, and on the fact that we do not have enough quota for our production. He is shaking his head, but that was clearly his answer. That penetration was already taking place during the 10 years before the introduction of the quotas. Since their introduction, we are continuing to put butter into intervention because of the rigidity of the milk marketing scheme, which prevented our dairy industries from facing up to the challenges of the market place.

Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman makes an intelligent contribution to our discussions. There is common ground between us in that we both want more production of high-value products. The milk marketing scheme encouraged the consumption of milk in liquid form because the Labour party supported, and still strongly supports, the doorstep delivery scheme and the idea that preference and priority should be given to the liquid market. Since the statutory arrangements were abandoned, that has changed, but I hope that the hon. Member will acknowledge that point and give us support for the doorstep delivery service.

Mr. Paice: Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not want to engage in cross-party bickering over the matter. Like him, I have followed these debates for many years. When he was in Government, I watched his performance from outside or from other parts of this Chamber and I am aware of his knowledge and genuine understanding of the issues. The penetration of the British dairy market resulted from the rigidity of our system, which meant that changes had to be made. I agree that we concentrated on the liquid milk market and the doorstep delivery service and I want that to continue wherever possible, but we have to face the fact that many people prefer to buy milk in supermarkets or elsewhere.
When the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Council of Ministers, there were only nine member states. Even then—as he will have experienced—it was difficult for the nine member nations to reach genuine decisions and to speed up those decisions. There are now 12 member states and we are moving towards 20 in a few years. By castigating the Government for failing to destroy the CAP, he fails to recognise the reality of power, as opposed to the desires of the Government in power.
I was interested in the hon. Member's kind comments about my contributions to debates on agriculture. It is five years since I spoke in an agriculture debate, having spent four and a half of those years as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when I was prohibited from participating. Never in my lifetime, which has been spent in or close to the agricultural industry, has farming and agricultural policy been so unpopular.
That unpopularity has been brought about by many factors. Memories of the shortages during and immediately

after the war have become dim and do not exist in many people's minds, including those of my generation. I believe that £28 per family per week—the alleged cost of the CAP —is a spurious figure. It is based on the assumption that Britain could meet all its requirements on the world market at today's world market prices. We all know, however, that the world market price is not a true, free market price—it is achieved by the competitive dumping of surpluses, as each major trading bloc seek to out-subsidise each other's dumped exports.
The current dissatisfaction is caused by the supposed desecration of the countryside by agricultural policy. That has been massively exaggerated, but none of us can deny that that concern has some foundation. The policy of set-aside is another reason for the unpopularity of agricultural policy, as are the health scares caused by pesticides, nitrates and other chemicals in food, which are of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Often those concerns are based purely on emotion and the fact that modern technology can detect almost anything in anything rather than on genuine scientific evidence.
It must be recognised that farmers have shown in some cases an unwillingness to change. That is changing dramatically, but they have shown themselves unwilling to face the free market. It cannot be denied that the cost of the CAP—£21 billion a year—to the European Community taxpayer is excessive. There have been successive efforts to adapt a system that was designed to deal with shortages to one that will deal with surpluses. There have been co-responsibility levies, the advent of quotas, and set-aside. Under the latest system, we are faced with the spectre of politicians and bureaucrats deciding how many acres of each crop should be grown and how many cows or sheep should be kept. It is a system of supply management gone completely mad. It is little different from the planned economies of the former Soviet Union, where politicians decided how many cars, tanks or widgets should be produced.
With every turn of the screw as we have tried to reform the common agricultural policy to reduce production, it has become more and more complex, with more and more bureaucrats and paperwork. Hon. Members have already mentioned the mountain of paperwork that landed on farmers' doorsteps a year ago, and I join in the congratulations that some of my hon. Friends have already offered the Government on having dramatically reduced the paperwork in this year's integrated administration and control system—IACS—round.
The more complex the system has become, the more open it has been to fraud. We have all heard the stories of olive groves that apparently moved, or did not exist at all, and of the Italian milk quota farce, whereby the quotas have not existed since the system started 10 years ago.
We have a system of intervention, and it is difficult to justify intervention with perishable commodities such as apples, which have already been mentioned, and, even worse, cauliflowers. I cannot help thinking that if my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) were here he would say that not the scheme but the people who designed it were the real cauliflowers—or Janice might tell him to say that. Already this evening, the question has been asked, how can we justify a system that supports tobacco growing at a cost of £1 billion a year when at the same time the Community wants to ban tobacco advertising altogether?
While I am in destructive mode, I shall add that the events of the past two years, since the alleged reform of the common agricultural policy, have demonstrated the nonsense of the whole shooting match, the nonsense of the idea that politicians and bureaucrats should try to manage an agricultural industry. In 1993–94, expenditure on agricultural support in the United Kingdom alone, through both the CAP and the Treasury, has risen by £1 billion —that is, by one third. That is another £40,000 for each holding in the country. That is crazy. No farmer would say that he is £40,000 better off than he was last year. The system is designed to lose the money within it, yet there have been extremely small reductions in our production levels.
The reforms agreed on the back of the original MacSharry proposals were designed to reduce production, but they ignored two factors. The first was that agricultural production relies as much on mother nature and the weather in any particular season as on any other factor. The first year after the reforms were introduced there was a substantial increase in yields in much of the country, and that completely got rid of any suggestion of a reduction in yields. Coming as it did on the back of the devaluation resulting from our leaving the exchange rate mechanism, it meant that farmers' incomes rose dramatically.
Opposition Members will not be surprised to hear that I do not criticise our Ministers for what has happened. Within the present framework, British Ministers have fought hard for British interests. My right hon. Friend the previous Minister, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, fought hard against the original MacSharry proposals to get rid of the discrimination against large-scale farmers that would have ensured that virtually all the support went to the smaller-scale farmers in mainland Europe, with very little coming to this country.
Our present Minister has worked hard on the issue of pigs, as we have heard, on trying to encourage the Commission to allow woodland to be planted on set-aside and on dealing with unfair national aids in other resources. For example, the proposed limits on nitrate residue levels in vegetables have hit the lettuce growers in my constituency hard.
I do not blame farmers either. Of course there are rogues in every fraternity, and one cannot deny that a few farmers have probably over-exploited the system. But the vast majority have done exactly what both successive British Governments and the Community have encouraged them to do. They have made the right business decisions based on the situation that faced them at any one time. They have now had 47 years' experience of varying systems of market support and they have responded to the challenges.
The hon. Members for Edinburgh, East and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) criticised the Government for not laying out their policy clearly. Those two hon. Gentlemen cannot have listened to some of the speeches and comments that my right hon. Friend the Minister has made. She has rightly said that we must move towards world prices. Judging by the speeches in the debate so far, that view seems to be shared almost universally throughout the Chamber.
I want not only to support that view but to emphasise the fact that prices should not be supported either directly or indirectly—it is important to mention indirect support, too. The Commission cannot be allowed to decide acreage payments—not simply the principle that we should have such payments, but whether we should receive X for oil

seed, Y for cereals or Z for something else. That is going back to the policy of the madhouse. How can people in Brussels decide on such issues, given the scale of even the present Europe, let alone of a future Europe that I hope will stretch from Trondheim to Athens, and from Dublin to Gdansk? It is a system of the madhouse.
Every time that we try to do something about the problem the system becomes more complicated and more absurd. How are we to make progress? I came to the debate thinking that I had a good idea—I am somewhat chastened to learn that everybody else seems to have had the same idea. We must not only get rid of price and market support but bring into play the concept of subsidiarity. We must get rid of market and price support and all the paraphernalia that goes with it—intervention, acreage payments based on crops, headage payments, export restitution, and so on. Those are all part of product support.
All that must be done quickly. The longer we allow the system to wither on the vine the more time there will be for the weak-willed among politicians to lose their resolve and to back-track. We saw the first example of that over the GATT negotiations, with the need to buy off France.
However, I do not believe that British farmers can survive just like that, without an alternative form of support. There must be alternative measures, otherwise the massive bankruptcies that would result from the destruction of the asset base that would inevitably follow would devastate our rural communities. As several hon. Members have already said, that would also destroy the British landscape as we know it and as it is maintained and nurtured by our farmers.
The concept of subsidiarity should be brought to bear on the CAP. I do not believe in the wholesale repatriation that some of my hon. Friends have suggested; I believe that there is a halfway house, and I shall return to that idea in a moment. There is one sound reason why I do not wish for total repatriation, and it is a point on which the hon. Member for North Cornwall sought to chide the Government. As any Government have always known and always will know, ultimately the Treasury wields the whip. We all know that it is unrealistic to expect the British Treasury, with an agricultural industry very small in comparison with that of the rest of the Community, to pour in the resources that many of us believe are necessary to support agriculture. That is why I do not want total repatriation of the CAP.
At the Brussels level we should stick to setting up a framework of support, with budgetary controls and an allocation of resources to individual countries, for each nation. Common standards should be set for pesticide levels, animal welfare criteria and many other matters relating to common trading and production terms. After that, each member nation should be allowed to decide how to use its allocation of resources within the criteria set by the GATT green box. That is the most important thing.
In the United Kingdom, as has been said so many times, the system would have to be based on environmental matters and on the enhancement of our environmentally sensitive areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) made a most sensitive speech on that subject, reflecting his genuine concern and knowledge of such matters. We must make the whole country, not just those parts of the country that we seek especially to protect, a conservation and environmentally sensitive area. The countryside stewardship scheme has considerable potential to be extended to deal with such matters. There would


obviously have to be substantial enhancement for the upland areas, the less-favoured and the severely disadvantaged areas.

Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Paice: I shall give way but only briefly because I know that I am taking a long time.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sympathetic to what he is saying, but does he support the cuts in HLCAs?

Mr. Paice: Yes, I do, and I shall quickly explain why. First, they are an annual payment which, as the hon. Gentleman said earlier, is made to compensate for whatever else has happened to affect the income of the producers in that particular year. The matter is reviewed every year and the payment depends on what has happened. Secondly, because the payments are related to headage, which is a pity, they are production linked, and I do not believe that that is the way to proceed in the long term.
An ever-increasing number of farmers now recognise that we can and should move towards a free market. Let us consider the wheat crop, which is the most important in my constituency. Economists believe that, contrary to the present low levels of world markets for wheat, the price will rise, probably to about £90 a tonne. Most wheat producers can survive at that level, provided that they are operating on reasonable land. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) referred to support levels for cereal growing in Wales. Many of us wonder why anyone in Wales grows cereals as the land there is not appropriate. [Interruption.] Most of it is not. One of the results of the CAP has been that much of the land that has been put into cereal production is not appropriate for it.

Mr. Ainger: I do not know when the hon. Gentleman last visited Pembroke, if, indeed, he has ever done so. Perhaps he does not realise that parts of Pembrokeshire are traditional grain-growing areas. I have here information which, if I have the opportunity to make my own contribution to the debate, will show that 8 tonnes is the average in certain areas, even in our LFAs. The hon. Gentleman should not run away with the wrong idea. I am sure that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) can also tell the hon. Gentleman that there are significant yields in Wales, some of which are certainly comparable with those of many parts of England.

Mr. Paice: I am delighted to hear it, but the principle still applies—most of the cereal growing in the marginal areas has come about because of the development of the CAP. That is not to the long-term advantage of those areas.
A free market would enable us to compete and not only to increase our self-sufficiency in products that we are good at—cereal, livestock products, particularly where they are grassland based, and sugar beet—but to fight back on the export market. I know that that point is of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. We would be able to fight back against the countries that have taken our markets and start to penetrate theirs. I use an example from my own constituency.
Celery is grown on a massive scale in the Fens near Ely and much is now exported to the mainland of Europe, for example, to Italy. That product is entirely within the free market but it shows that even in the horticultural sector, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) said, is often under considerable pressure, it is possible to fight back successfully. However, I believe that a small proportion of the money released by the ending of price and market support should be used to encourage further the development of export markets and marketing groups.
Another advantage of the move to the free market is that there would be much less room for fraud because the system would be so much simpler, and it would therefore be harder for fraud to be hidden. I now differ from some of my colleagues because I believe that it would also do away with much of the opportunity for national aid. The amount of money spent by each country would be clearly ring fenced and allocated from the Community. Any national aid that might arise would be clearly identifiable. At this point, I announce my support for what the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) said about iceberg lettuces about which the Minister knows I am concerned.
My right hon. Friend the Minister also referred to regulation and bureaucracy. Farmers in my constituency complain about the ever-increasing bureaucracy more than anything else. They not only complain about the total amount but believe that other countries do not face the same level of bureaucracy. They do not believe that other countries are adhering to, or enforcing, their regulations. The problem, of course, is that of proof.
When officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food talk to their opposite numbers in Paris, Rome, Madrid or anywhere else, they are reassured that regulations exist and are being enforced. That is understandable but the evidence on the ground is that they are not being enforced. We have to examine ways to find out more clearly what precisely is happening in other countries.
Most important, a free market would correct the bias against alternative production. In terms of livestock, there are deer, goats and even horses in the free market, but in arable terms, many potential new crops for industrial purposes—oil-seeds, sugar as an industrial feedstock, coppice and energy and pharmaceutical crops—currently have to compete against subsidy, and they cannot but fail.
Britain has a high population density and an increasingly urban population who regard the countryside as their place of recreation. I do not believe that they would stand for long for what would result from a complete abolition of all support for agriculture, although some hon. Members may think otherwise. The devastation of part of the countryside as marginal land was left derelict and as better land was farmed even more intensively would eventually cause a public outcry. Therefore, it is essential that we produce an alternative system based on environment factors so that the farmers can face the public with their heads held high and say that they are providing tangible benefits for the public's money, benefits that the public can recognise and respect, such as access to woodland areas for recreation and other purposes. Otherwise, we shall continue as we are.
The proposals that we are discussing today merely tinker with the reforms that we have already introduced and the CAP will continue like some Frankenstein monster, still charging on while every attempt to shackle it


fails and we have to keep trying. It is time that it was demolished and rebuilt in a completely new form. To do that would be to the advantage not only of farmers but of taxpayers, consumers and the countryside.

Mr. William Ross: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) and, when he spoke about the change to the present system of support, I thought that I was listening to a faint echo of my own words in the Chamber from nearly 20 years ago. At that time, not all the countries of Europe had reached their present level of production per acre, or per hectare. Those of us who knew farming and knew the quality of land in Europe wondered what on earth would happen if there were surpluses and food mountains, which duly arrived. That could not possibly have caught Members of either Front Bench by surprise because they had only to look across the Atlantic and examine the long experience of the United States. However, we followed the same route with set-aside and so on. Having said that, I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East any further other than to say that some of what he said, and some of what other hon. Members have said, will be of general interest.
We have a mass of paper to wade through but the bottom line for farmers is the money in their pocket or money in the bank. Many farming sectors have had a hard time in Northern Ireland. Pigs have been mentioned in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole but, in Northern Ireland, the price of pigs is currently about 94p per kilogramme whereas the production cost is 98p per kilogramme—one does not have to be much of an economist to realise that farmers will not make a fortune at that rate.
Weather conditions led to problems for the potato crop last year, which was the second consecutive bad year. In the less-favoured areas of the Province, we find that the net average income is less than £5,000 per annum, ranging from a top income of some £12,000 down to £900. The reduction in compensation levels in Northern Ireland' cost £4 million out of a total cut of £25 million. If people in that area of the Kingdom think that they have been harshly treated, they have good reason. We should note that it is the areas with the harshest climate and environment that suffered the most.
If the bottom line for farmers is money in their bank accounts in profits, the bottom line for the taxpayer is the cost of agricultural support. I can remember the searchlights over Belfast and the fires burning when t was a small child. I still believe in security of the food supply. We would be wrong to run down our farming industry to the point where we could not feed our people. Farming is a long-term business. There is a long lead time to increase production if it goes down, and we do not want that to happen.
Having said that, I am sure that no farmer could possibly be happy with an economic structure in which subsidies in one form or another can sometimes amount to more than the net farm income in certain parts of the country. I understand that that is not only happening in some areas but it will be the consequence in many more areas because of the CAP reform package that was agreed in May 1992.
On top of that, we have a desire to keep a pretty countryside through which people can wander—hedges, stone walls, and attractive, viable villages. Hedges and walls were not planted or built simply to be pretty; they were planted and built to fulfil the need for shelter for stock, marking field boundaries and farms and making life easier for the farmer. Villages were built as a result of the economic need of the day.
Enough has been said in the debate to show that people who have an interest in the matter have all been driven to the same conclusion: those things can be kept in the long term, if they are not an economic necessity for the farmer—farmers will not spend money on them—for tourists or our own people only if there is some system of subsidy or grant to landowners to keep them in existence. If society wants to keep such things, society will have to pay for them by a grant in some form or another; they are not cheap to keep.
Machines do much of the work that used to be done by hand. However, laying a hedge, building a stone wall or monitoring stock can eventually be done only by hands, eyes and feet on the ground, and all farmers know that. The question then arises whether the rest of the population—the taxpayer—will continue to finance them. Even if the taxpayer is prepared to continue to put large sums of money in the agricultural industry, for so much of farmers' spendable income to come out of the taxpayers' pocket is unhealthy. I am concerned about that, as is every farmer in the country. The question is, how will our agricultural production and food production generate the necessary money to provide an income for farmers throughout the United Kingdom?
Earlier this year, I asked a number of questions about farm incomes in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members who are interested in the precise details can look them up in Hansard from 24 to 28 February. I shall run through one or two of them; they will be of interest to many people because they show what the real income in agriculture has been. Between 1964 and 1993, the number of farmers and partners in Northern Ireland fell from 42,600 to 32,400 —a decrease of 10,000 people. The number of full-time hired workers fell from 7,300 to 1,900—in other words, there is about only one quarter of the number in 1964. The number of all regularly employed family workers fell from 24,700 to 6,000—just under one-quarter of the work force in 1964—and the total agricultural labour force fell from 100,600 to 56,500. Those are considerable decreases.
I then asked a number of questions about the total income from farming in the same years. The total income rose in cash terms from £45.5 million to £272 million—a multiple of nearly six. The number of farm businesses decreased from 37,000 to 28,000, and the income for farm business in cash terms rose from £1,228 to £9,483—a multiple of 7.2. I hope that hon. Members will keep that figure in mind. The annual wage per full-time hired male over 20 rose from £14 per week, or £728 per annum, to an annual salary of £8,306—a multiple of 11.4. In other words, during that long period, the agricultural paid worker improved his position much faster than the income per farm business or, for that matter, the income of the farmer.
The total income from farming in real terms—taking 1993 as 100—was 126 in 1970, 119 in 1971, 120 in 1972 and 133 in 1973. In 1980, it went down to 39.79, and at one time it was 53. At no other time during that long period did it pass the present level in real terms. It was almost the same story for the income for farm business, and the annual wage per hired male rose overall by 50 per cent. in real


terms. The average gross weekly earnings for full-time employees in manufacturing industry in the Province during that time went from £29 in 1971 to £279—a multiple of 9.5—with a present salary of some £14,500 per year. That is £6,000 more than the salary for an agricultural wage earner.
If one thinks that that will attract people to farming and help them to stay in farming, one is living in a dream world. The reality is that young people in farming are voting with their feet. Throughout my lifetime, they have continued to get out of farming; farmers are an aging population, and the farming industry in this country simply cannot afford that. Unless we raise the level of farm income for farmers and farm workers, farmers will literally die on their feet.
Several other interesting statistics came out of those figures and I hope that hon. Members will listen to them. In 1984, the total amount for farm buildings and works was £134 million in Northern Ireland. The provisional amount for 1993 is £55.79 million. Total plant and machinery rose from £44 million to £68 million, but that is only keeping pace with inflation. People were not putting money into long-term investment in buildings and works; they could not afford it. However, they had to continue to replace plant and machinery, and they did so as best they could.
Farming is not doing well despite the rise in the past year or so. The farming industry has long been one of decline, low income, low investment, low spendable income and a drift of people out of farming. In those circumstances, we must think seriously about what we are doing and how we will increase farm income in the years ahead. That must not take a long time—it must be done swiftly.
There will not be a big increase in the amount of food which we need and which we produce, and we are probably producing a fair percentage of what we can produce. The costs of production are unlikely to fall by much more, while the costs of transport will probably increase. That leaves only an increase in farm gate prices, an increase in consumer prices or a shift in profit from the middle men and food retailers back to the farmer. In her opening speech, the Minister mentioned the retail cost of food over the counter at the supermarket and at the farm gate.
Of course, there is the possibility of restructuring farm sizes. That is not an unmixed blessing, and it has been going on for years. If we want it to continue, we need to make up our minds about to what extent we want it to continue and how swiftly we want it to come about. If we want it to come about quickly and easily, we must look urgently at a farm early retirement scheme.
The economic background which I detailed for farming during the past 25 years has left little scope for the farming community—either the workers on farms or the farmers themselves—to provide for their retirement. So far as the rural scene generally is concerned, we must keep more people in rural areas and, preferably, those who were born there because they know what to expect. It is not always a happy experience when urban dwellers move into the country.
I believe that the planners have a part to play to encourage work other than agriculture in rural areas, and to

encourage people to stay there. Schools and viable shopping should exist and there should be a measure of social life.
I want to finish as quickly as I can, and I will mention just two short items. First, environmental improvement has been dwelt upon by a number of hon. Members. I say to those on the Government Front Bench that if they could solve the problem of silage effluent and render the stuff harmless, they would probably do more for the environment and for the agricultural scene than anything else which they can think of.
Secondly, I want to mention salmon cages to the Minister because he was on the Front Bench when I asked him a question about that subject today. There is a pollution problem, as the Minister knows. This may be the only fishing matter which has been mentioned today. There is a problem with lice on sea trout which has been ruinous. Most people believe that that has to do with sea cages for salmon. I am just trying to save a stamp, because the Minister asked me to write to him on the matter.
The hon. Gentleman will understand that most salmon cages are in sheltered lochs, but there is one off the coast of Antrim at Larne which is in the open sea. I understand that it has stood up fairly well and there is no problem with lice there. That is probably because the stronger tides and the more open water allow them to dissipate. Will the Minister please look at the matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I must point out respectfully that there are eight hon. Members who wish to catch my eye. We have 70 minutes before the wind-up, and if hon. Members show a degree of modesty about the length of their speeches, everyone can be called.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I shall try to be brief, and I will certainly not follow the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) down the line of fishing, as a number of hon. Members will understand.
I have listened with enormous interest to all of the speeches today, and they have encompassed practically every issue involved with the common agricultural policy. There seems to be an agreement that the CAP is not perhaps the most appropriate policy for this day and age. Probably all of us who have been involved in politics during the past 20 years are conscious that the United Kingdom has never found the CAP an easy policy to live with.
I am equally concerned that some of the suggestions which are being made to improve the CAP would not help the problem greatly in terms of over-production and under-production. Those of us who remember the system of deficiency payments will equally remember that there would be far too much of one thing one year, and then everybody would switch to something else. There were great peaks and troughs, and to bring back national aids to each member country would, I suspect, exacerbate that problem. Hon. Members may multiply that problem by 12 at the moment, by 16 soon and by 20 in a few years.
I wish to refer to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate). During the past few years, there have been screams of agony and pain from the farming community, and those are beginning to become muted—I would put it no higher than that.


However, there are great screams of pain within the horticultural industry, particularly in Kent, east Sussex and my own constituency.
I am delighted to say that my constituency has a mixed farming base, so we have a one-constituency common agricultural policy. Every inch is covered by environmentally sensitive areas, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest. One particular farm, which has rediscovered the 18th century seed bed, is becoming a European SSSI. We are all proud of that.
To diversify, a number of farmers have rightly and historically turned to fruit growing. I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham said about the need to sort out surplus production, particularly of apples and even more particularly of Cox's. We need grubbing grants and a reduction in intervention prices.
We also need to encourage as far as possible—I am delighted that the Ministry is doing this—the further development of marketing grants and the encouragement of collaborative and co-operative efforts. The screams of pain in my constituency are coming most clearly from those who grow blackcurrants. That may seem to be a tiny part of the market, but it is an exceedingly valuable part —or it was a few years ago.
The problem is that there has been increased planting throughout the EC. Germany is now the largest producer, while there have been planting grants in France which, I am happy to acknowledge, are soon to end. There is a particular problem in eastern Europe. Probably all of us remember when the iron curtain existed, and one of the great imports from Poland then was soft fruit.
Increased planting has meant that United Kingdom prices have tumbled during the past few years. Last year, growers were able to get £250 a tonne, but now it is £200 a tonne. One of the criticisms which has been voiced tonight is how slowly the Commission reacts to setting minimum intervention prices. I believe that the Commission is likely to set minimum intervention prices in May, but that is of no help to my constituents who are fixing their contracts now, at a time when there is no floor to the market. It is possible that they will not make a profit, but will make significant losses.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister should bear that in mind when they come to talk in Brussels about the reform of the fruit and vegetable package. We must ensure that the minimum intervention prices come in at a time when they are crucial.
The other issue which is of enormous concern is the fruit which is being produced in eastern Europe. I am not for one moment suggesting that we do anything to reduce trade, access to hard currency or any of the other benefits which have flowed from the ending of communism in eastern Europe. I want to see the markets strengthened. However, one of the problems with which we have to deal is that there is no knowledge in eastern Europe of what a market is.
The countries had centrally controlled and directed economies, so nobody knows what profit, loss, costs or everything else are and blackcurrants grown in eastern Europe are coming into the EC at giveaway prices. One of the suggestions which I would like to put to the Minister —I would be grateful if he would pass it on to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—is that we use the know-how fund to bolster the economic knowledge of growers in Poland, Hungary, the Czech republic and Slovakia.
One of my constituents, who is a blackcurrant grower, is going out to eastern Europe next week and will inquire directly into that problem. I have asked him to produce a report, which I shall ensure that the Minister of State receives, containing his recommendations to try to establish a knowledge of markets in eastern Europe.
The other part of the policy that needs reforming is that in relation to the wine market. England is not, shall we say, one of the great wine-growing nations, but over the years we have improved English wine enormously. We are facing problems in the European Community, especially with France, in terms of recognition of the vines that are being used, hybridity and many technical areas that I do not want to pursue. I urge the Minister of State to bear in mind that that high-quality product should be encouraged as part of the continuing diversification in farming. If we can encourage farmers to broaden their production and to ensure that, one way or another, they receive an adequate return, we shall continue to have the mixed and varied countryside that is so important to us all.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I have to declare an interest—the ownership of 32 acres of agricultural land, no more than that. What I have to say, by and large, will be in tune with the general theme of the debate, but I need to start with a few words of criticism.
The Government's position on these price proposals seems to be characterised by the fact that the Government are especially enthusiastic in support of cuts, except insofar as they are not sufficient in the area of milk, sheep, and beef—crucial sectors for my constituency and for Wales. The Government support cuts or call for deeper cuts. That cutting theme is of a piece with other measures that have aroused the ire of the agricultural community in Wales, and which I want to mention.
The reduction in hill livestock compensatory allowances has been justified by the Government in terms of the increase in incomes since 1990. However, those increases were from a very low level—still lower than they were in 1988–89, and attributable largely to the devaluation of the pound. Those increases are already being eroded by the increase in the value of the pound. Will the Government undertake to increase the value of HLCAs if the pound continues to gain in strength and less-favoured area incomes decrease?
The reduction from 50 per cent. to 20 per cent. in the farm and conservation grant scheme for the disposal of silage effluent, slurry, dirty water and so on is most unsatisfactory. In my constituency the effect will be that many small farmers, especially middle-aged ones, will be unable to meet the capital costs of works, will find themselves facing the possibility of heavy fines for pollution, will leave milk production, will sell their quotas and will thus eliminate a farm as a viable unit. That process has very damaging social and cultural effects in rural areas.
That is the opposite of what we should be trying to achieve nowadays. We need measures to strengthen and maintain small family farms. I endorse the suggestion of the Farmers Union of Wales that if we are to have a milk quota cut—I notice the Government's undertaking not to support such a cut—the first 240,000 litres, for example, should be exempt from any such cut.
Even more fury has been aroused in Wales by the way in which the arable aid scheme discriminates against cereal


growers in the way that has been mentioned. The basic injustice of the lower level compensation in Wales has been compounded by the Government's efforts to get out of difficulty. First there was a carve-up in Wales on parish lines, with some farmers gaining at the expense of even lower levels of payment for their neighbours on identical land just the other side of the parish boundary. That was followed by the less illogical, but still unsatisfactory, LFA/non-LFA division.
Welsh farmers want parity—no more and no less—with their English counterparts. I am asking for an undertaking from the Secretary of State for Wales that he will fight for that parity until we get it, but of course the Secretary of State for Wales is not in the Chamber. His absence is astonishing. I cannot believe that when we are debating such a vital industry in Wales—an industry that in mid-Wales, for example, employs about 20 per cent. of the work force—the Secretary of State for Wales, who is the Minister of Agriculture for Wales, is not present, especially in view of the many grievances that Welsh farmers have these days.
The rest of my remarks are based on the relationship between agricultural policy and the environment and on environmental sustainability. I express my great pleasure at the emerging consensus of the importance of bringing those two themes together. Environmental sustainability must henceforth be the guiding principle of all policies, not simply in agriculture. All development henceforth must be based on the principle of sustainability. That is recognised by the international community in new international conventions, by the European Union in very important policy documents, and by the British Government in documents published a month ago. The Government have declared that they will work for
a higher proportion of EC expenditure on direct payments to farmers to be applied to encouraging more environmentally sensitive farming".
It is good to read that type of commitment. We have to wait and see whether it amounts to anything substantial. The Government also speak about
the application of environmental conditions to support payments
— interesting stuff.
We have the beginnings of such a trend in many initiatives in Wales—useful and praiseworthy enough, but their number, as has been suggested, constitutes a problem.
Agri-environmental schemes for Wales under EC directive 2078/92 include, on the Wales-wide level, the farm woodland premium scheme, the farm and conservation grant scheme, the hedgerow renovation scheme and the habitat improvement schemes. They also include the organic farming scheme, which is a scandal and needs to be rectified because of its very unfair treatment of organic farmers. Also there is the moorland extensification scheme. Those are on an all-Wales level.
On a territorial basis we have Tir Cymen, we have sites of special scientific interest management agreements, and of course we have environmentally sensitive areas. Those are administered by the Welsh Office Agricultural Department and the Countryside Council for Wales. In addition, other schemes are available in and through national parks, by local authorities, and by the Forest Authority. We thus have a plethora of schemes, some overlapping—two, for example, concerning woodland, one

obviously inferior to the other and therefore never taken up —administered by three national organisations, plus the national parks and local authorities.
Countryside and agricultural organisations are at one in lobbying for rapid progress towards a single consolidated scheme for the whole of Wales. Such a scheme would be more cost-effective than the existing ones; it would avoid the danger of double funding; it would be easier to evaluate and to modify to improve performance; it would be much more comprehensible to farmers and their advisers and so would be more readily taken up, because currently people are no doubt confused by the multiplicity of schemes and organisations. A single scheme would provide the one-stop shop where users would deal with one organisation—one officer.
The Countryside Council for Wales reckons that the net additional costs of an all-Wales agri-environment scheme at 1993 prices would be about £26 million per annum. Simply on economic grounds, that would be an excellent investment, in my view. It would provide an element of stability for farm incomes. It would be good for tourism. Midmore and Jenkins of the university of Wales, Aberystwyth, have calculated that there would be significant employment gains in rural areas. There would be a certain amount of loss of employment through reduced inputs and so on, but there would be a significant net increase in employment through increased demand for labour and materials in relation to environmental tasks such as fencing, hedge restoration and tree planting.
The environmental benefits would considerable, obviously in terms of the visual attraction of the countryside but also, and more importantly, in the crucial area of biodiversity. It is impossible to over-emphasise that consideration. Biodiversity is the subject of an important Government document published a month ago, along with the sustainable development strategy. Socially and culturally, such a scheme would be extremely advantageous to rural areas. Unfortunately, the Welsh Office failed to set in train a process of creating such an all-Wales integrated scheme a year ago. The possibility existed but was not taken up.
However, the Secretary of State for Wales set up a working group to consider the issue in October and I understand that the working group is about to report to him. This debate should concentrate his mind on what he should do with that report. I trust that it will not turn out to be a mechanism for postponement and that the Secretary of State for Wales will see the opportunity for Wales to play a pioneering role in the area. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) say that the percentage of support in Wales was higher than in the rest of the UK.
I strongly believe that agri-environmental payments should occupy an increasingly central role in agricultural support on a European level. Currently, they constitute no more than 5 per cent. of the European Union or British agricultural budget. There is every reason to believe that they could and should become the primary mechanism for agricultural support, rather than continue to occupy their present marginal position. They would encourage an extension in production, a way of reducing overproduction infinitely preferable to the set-aside scheme and its inevitable corollary of intensified production on the remaining acreage.
Agri-environmental payments would work through management agreements on environmentally-sensitive


farming systems in return for direct, annual, area-based payments plus capital payments for specific environmental enhancement. Good husbandry, skilful crop management and efficiency would be rewarded in the market place and in profit margins. There is ample evidence, including from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, that direct area-based payments are easily the most cost-efficient means of providing agricultural support. In the interests of maintaining small-scale family farms and a living countryside, those area-based payments would have to be modulated. I know that that was once a dirty word for the Government, but they would have to be modulated or tapered on an acreage basis. The scandalous state of affairs whereby 20 per cent. of farmers receive 80 per cent. of the subsidy is unsustainable morally, socially or in public relations terms. There is little doubt that such agricultural support would be legal under GATT and would come within the green box.
With CAP reform due in 1996, now is the time to explore in detail the mechanisms and implications of such a switch. If we merely limp and lurch from cut to cut, as is currently happening, we shall end up with environmentally damaging agricultural business and a devastated countryside, neither of which we can afford. What we need is not cuts but a pro-active approach to environmentally sustainable farming applied flexibly throughout the European Union according to local circumstances. That requires a radical redirection of support aimed, at the very least, at maintaining the agricultural population at its present level. There is no justification for continuing to reduce the agricultural population.
Agri-environmental payments would provide greater stability and confidence in forward planning and would probably provide economic security for greater numbers of people at a significantly reduced cost to the taxpayer. That is the way ahead.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am grateful for being called to speak. I hope that the House does not consider it a discourtesy that I have been absent for much of the debate, but I am serving on the First Scottish Standing Committee, from which there is no parole. I represent a constituency in which agriculture is still the largest industry. Much of it is in less-favoured areas and I shall concentrate my brief remarks on hill farming.
The reform of the CAP coupled with a reduction in the value of the pound has brought considerable benefits to farmers in my constituency whose incomes plunged to disastrous levels in 1990–91, when they dropped by several thousands pounds to an average of £5,000.
The Government should be congratulated on changing, in the CAP negotiations, the method of paying premium on lamb. The switch from a variable premium has given a considerable boost to the market for exporting live lamb. In my constituency, some 30 to 40 per cent. of lambs are exported. The measure has been particularly valuable for hill farmers because the small, hardy hill ewes produce small carcasses that are popular in southern France and Spain, while the bigger carcasses now go to the rest of France. Although that is good news for hill farmers, it is bad news for English consumers who must now pay continental prices for their lamb.
Nevertheless, hill farmers still face problems. One of the reasons why there was such an outcry when hill

livestock farming allowances were cut was that they were based on average incomes. For every farmer on average or above-average incomes, many more are on below-average incomes and they have suffered because of the HLCA cut. I understand the logic of cutting the payment, which is meant to go up when incomes go down and go down when incomes go up. The difficulty is that farmers on small incomes see it simply as a reduction in their income, which can be crucial if their earnings are very low.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) that one of the disadvantages of the HLCA payment is that it is paid on headage. I hope that the Government will move away from a headage-based support to switching at least some of the premium payments to area payments in the hills. I know that such a way forward has been pushed by the National Farmers Union and the Moorland Association, but it would improve the guarantee of an income for upland farmers without forcing them continually to increase stocking.
The time for hill farmers has come. I appreciate the fact that agricultural Ministers have been busy with the CAP reform, GATT and other important negotiations like the reform of the milk marketing board system, but the problems facing hill farmers should now move up the agenda. One or two things can reasonably be done to help them. Apart from de-coupling premium payments and replacing them with area payments at no extra cost to the taxpayer, another great help would be to pay all the special premium on beef in a lump sum to producers. The idea of paying it in two parts after eight and 24 months is fine but it is unsuitable for hill farmers, who cannot keep beasts that long.
It would be a great boost to such farmers if the money could be paid to the producer as it would simplify much of the administration. It would also have the benefit of improving the marketing of beef. At present, much of the beef is going on the market because of the payment of the second part of the premium rather than because it is the optimum size for slaughter, so the measure would improve the quality of the carcass at the same time.
The Government could also continue to resist pressure by animal welfare groups to reduce the hours that animals can spend in transportation. As I said, 30 to 40 per cent. of the lambs produced in my constituency are exported. A restriction to eight hours would instantly wipe out that market. If those regulations are to be changed, they must not disadvantage farmers in hill areas.
The Government could also consider improving relationships between farmers and MAFF. With all those forms in the past two or three years, the relationship between the Ministry and farmers has deteriorated because of farmers' difficulties in filling in forms and the advice on them that they receive. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister understands that, as a result of quotas and IACS forms, some farmers in my constituency who have no quota have been fined for filling in forms incorrectly, in that they have not received their premium. I think that this has caused an unhappy relationship between MAFF officials and some farmers. When a farmer simply fills in the wrong box on a fairly innocent form, having spoken to the regional office, he can suddenly discover that he is short of his quota by 100 sheep. That is unfortunate. MAFF was a friend, but it is becoming less friendly and that is a pity.
These are some of the things that can be done to help hill farmers. I think the time has come to consider the hill


farmer. We do not want to see our upland areas turned into television sets for series such as "All Creatures Great and Small". We want a continuing, viable hill farming community where people can live and work.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I am very conscious of your strictures about time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and therefore I will be brief. I had wanted to go further down the road of the debate about potatoes and milk that we had last year when the Agriculture Bill was going through the House, but I will raise just two issues in this debate.
We heard two very interesting contributions this evening from the Government Benches. One of them came from the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and the other from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). I thought those contributions were significant because those hon. Members are obviously peering through a window that is of interest to a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I served briefly on the Front Bench, and know that one is constrained to some extent as to how freely and openly one can discuss what is going through one's mind about agricultural reform. Perhaps I am now able to express a view or two on those matters a little more freely.
Having examined the brief for a year, I believe that there is an argument for patriating agricultural policy. I do not think that it is a problem in the way that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) suggested. He seemed to think that we were talking simply of repatriating the policy in terms of regulation and standards. That is not the issue.
Everyone who takes a sane approach to these issues accepts that there must be a level playing field throughout the Community in terms of regulatory arrangement, whereby there are common standards and whereby a producer in Italy, Germany, France and the United Kingdom complies with broadly the same rules.
However, I think there is room for increased patriation of the budget. The proposition is that one necessarily has to have a level playing field on the budget throughout the Community. We can survive within the Community without that level playing field. I will give an example from the United Kingdom. The arrangements for area payments in Wales are different from those in England. While there may be those who would object to that, it shows that we can run two regimes side by side that do not provide for a level playing field. There might be a need to recalibrate, but that establishes a principle.
It is quite insane that the financial mechanisms that apply in the United Kingdom in terms of subsidy should necessarily apply in the Mediterranean countries of Europe. They produce different products in different circumstances and it might be that their climates are more favourable to one product as against another, just as our climate is more favourable to a particular product. It is really a question of accepting that there may be conditions in which a level playing field may not apply but countries are not necessarily placed at a competitive disadvantage.
The National Farmers Union should consider those matters, as there is a very good case to be made. I do not want to go too far down this route tonight, but I see budget funding in that light. Brussels advocating money for a

specific purpose is not an ideal arrangement. One could establish a system whereby moneys are allocated to individual nation states based upon a mathematical formula. Once those moneys have been allocated, within an agricultural budget—some people might even say outside it—they could be spent in whatever areas national Governments decide will be their priority.
In other words, if the Italians want to resist spending money on environmental improvement—as I understand it, various countries within the Community do not want to spend money in particular areas and one is always negotiating to find a standard arrangement for allocation —let them have their money, and if they want to spend it in certain ways they should be allowed to do so.
However, why not then allow other countries to spend their money by way of area payments as against headage or promoting particular forms of production? This is how I was thinking privately during the time when I had some responsibility in such matters.
An extremely important subject is not being addressed in the debate, and there must be wide support across the House for the principles that I am about to enunciate. We have failed persistently—for decades—to deal with the problem of fraud in the Community. The problem is far greater than we are led to believe because our information sources are limited. The reasons why they are very limited can be found in the reports that were placed in the Vote Office for hon. Members to read. I do not want to go into the details today, but they suggest to me that we are only sampling what may be a much bigger problem.
Some interesting work on those matters has been done in the House of Lords. The other place has produced three reports: one released in 1988 entitled "Fraud Against the Community", another in 1992 entitled "The Fight Against Fraud", and, from the Select Committee on the European Communities, a very interesting report of 14 March this year entitled "Fraud and Mismanagement in the Community's Finances". I shall quote from that report some sections that are particularly relevant to our debate. It refers to the first two reports that I have alluded to and says:
we noted that some of these proposals"—
the proposals in the reports—
have been implemented to varying extents. However, we concluded that there was still a lack of strong political will in the Council of Ministers to bring fraud to an end and put the management of the Community's finances on a firmer footing".
In reference to a statement in one of the auditor's reports attacking failure to act, the Committee then goes on to say:
This statement is depressing enough, but our concerns are heightened by the fact that the Court feels that there has been 'little or no improvement' in the financial management of the Community, despite repeated criticisms made in its annual reports. The Court considers that the Commission has had sufficient time to act or to launch any necessary legislative initiative, but has failed to do so. The Court's report also issues the warning that, unless there are radical changes, it may not be able in future reports to provide the statement of assurance about the reliability of the Community accounts and the legality of its underlying operations which is required by the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty.
They are heavy criticisms, but it is interesting that, before producing the report, Committee members wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The paper to the Chancellor sets out what the Committee believed to be the alternative approach. It proposed that a task force should be set up. The paper stated that it was
suggested that a high level Task Force should be set up by the Heads of Community Governments to inquire into the financial


organisation of the Commission and also of the Member States, insofar as Community funds are involved and to make specific recommendations … We propose that the Task Force should be established as a temporary measure for, say, five years. It should not be a new institution and should not be seen as in any way usurping the functions of the Court of Auditors … we suggest that it be a small independent group comprised of, say, 4–6 persons with wide experience in the administration of large concerns".
I believe that on Monday this week the new Commissioner responsible for such matters was supposed to report to ECOFIN on his proposals for dealing with fraud in the Community. I understand that there has been some delay—the proposals should have been published this afternoon.
I keep asking myself whether, despite the fact that the Commissioner has been appointed specifically to deal with fraud, we are once again going to dodge the issue and not face up to our responsibilities. The fact that has always worried me is that the existence of the rebate to some extent compromises us in negotiations and prevents us from laying down the law by demanding major reform.
I understand that there has been some change and that the Home Secretary's proposals will be considered by the Community. I hope that some action is taken to deal with this important sector of Community finance.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye at this time of the evening. I am glad to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
Our purpose is to consider European Community document No. 4616/94, which I have with me and which is a bulky document—who says that the EC is not bureaucratic? We also have to consider the excellent booklet prepared by my right hon. Friend the Minister entitled "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1993", which is a much better document. It is clearer and more informative.
Today's important debate on agriculture comes at a critical time following the 1992 CAP reform and, particularly, the 1993 GATT Uruguay round, concluded so successfully in December by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It brings 116 countries within the GATT mechanism and means that, for the first time, the GATT will cover agriculture. It puts us on the road to reforming the excesses of the CAP—to a certain extent, we have the Americans to thank for that.
There are advantages in the GATT because direct export subsidies would be reduced by 36 per cent. over six years and subsidised exports would be reduced by 21 per cent. over the same period. Unfortunately, the French introduced a last minute stopgap in the Breydel agreement and extended the period to nine years. Nevertheless, at the Edinburgh summit we undertook to restrict the budget to 1.27 per cent. of our resources. The French again introduced a rider stating that if additional measures proved necessary, the requisite steps would be taken. In other words, there is a get-out clause. Despite the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister said earlier that the Chancellor had agreed this week that the ceiling would not be breached, a get-out clause exists. We must watch carefully if expenditure within the CAP is not to go on and on mounting.
The Blair House agreement introduced a new scheme of subsidising the land rather than production. Many hon. Members have called for the ending of subsidised production, which simply extends the system of ever-increasing subsidies. The integrated administration and control system—IACS—introduced last April brought about that welcome change. We shall now gradually be able to tie subsidies to the land and perhaps, which would be even better, to the person involved.
Under IACS we set aside 15 per cent. of land throughout the EC. That amounts to about 666,000 hectares—about 1.5 million acres—in this country. That is not the correct policy for the long term. We have seen what has happened this year—farmers have taken out their best land and employed better crop husbandry techniques and better techniques generally. Although we have taken out 15 per cent. of our land, the EC as a whole has reduced its production by only 2 per cent. A scheme costing many billions of pounds in the EC that reduces production by only 2 per cent. cannot be sensible. In the long term, it will be unsustainable.
The set-aside regime did not originate in IACS, but had been operating earlier. There was a five-year set-aside scheme and, thanks to my right hon. Friend's efforts at the last Council meeting, there is now an environmental scheme over 20 years. That has enabled us to introduce more environmentally friendly farming, of which much has been said today. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) mentioned the subject in great detail. In the time available to me I cannot develop the subject in such detail. I agreed with a number of the points made by my hon. Friend.
I have been urging on my right hon. Friend the Minister that we should include forestry in the set-aside regime. England has a forestry cover of only 8 per cent.—the lowest cover of any country in Europe. I know the problem facing my right hon. Friend within Europe where there is a much higher percentage of forestry cover. But it must make sense to plant more trees—I believe that many farmers would wish to do so—on land that will not come into production again in the near future, if ever. It would make sense to put some of that land into forestry.
I also urge my right hon. Friend to consider the management regime for set-aside. Last year we introduced a system whereby farmers were obliged to cut the weeds from their land to prevent it from becoming too untidy prior to July. Many nests and much wildlife were disturbed. I should like a regime, particularly on non-rotational set-aside, that allowed a moratorium between April and July so that the land could be left alone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln mentioned the 20-year environmental set-aside scheme. The problem is that no one will implement it at present. It is not in IACS and is financially unattractive. It would be sensible for us to have an environmental set-aside scheme, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider that.
As well as EC environmental schemes there are domestic environmental schemes. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on creating six new environmentally sensitive areas—I am particularly grateful for the two which affect my constituents and which will be welcomed by them—the upper Thames tributaries and the Cotswolds. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for helping my constituents and I hope that, in turn, farmers in my constituency will take up the policy with alacrity and farm in a more sympathetic way. That is exactly what the public want. I hope that, as
provided for under the ESA scheme, the public will have greater access to the beautiful regions of the Cotswolds and the upper Thames tributaries, which are well worth a visit.
I should like to move to the question of how we should deal with the common agricultural policy budget. We should be grateful to the Americans. A system that encouraged ever more subsidy and the dumping of exports on the third world at prices way below those of its indigenous products was crazy. That did the poorest countries no good at all, because their own farmers could not possibly compete, so they went out of business or—even worse—started producing drugs, tobacco or other undesirable crops.
I welcome the fact that we will reduce the subsidising of exports dumped on the poorer countries, but it is incumbent on all politicians to find a solution to the problem of starvation in the third world. World population must surely be the key to the solution. There are five billion people on this earth. That number is set to double in the next 30 or 40 years, and it will double again to 20 billion by the end of the 21st century. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I will live to see that, but my children's children certainly will. It is a sobering thought that in 100 years' time there will be four times as many people on earth—an horrific prospect for this country, too.
That is one reason why we must sort out the CAP. But there is a much more pertinent reason for doing so—to benefit our taxpayers, our farmers, and above all our consumers. We spend roughly £3 billion on our agriculture every year. The Minister's excellently produced booklet tells us that fact. Given our population of 56 million, that works out at about £60 per person per year. That is certainly a large figure, but it is not huge in the context of the Government's other expenditure. I would not claim that the public are getting value for money, but they are getting something for their money—cheaper food than they would get if we had a free market. They are also getting the sort of countryside that they want. Increasingly, the countryside will be run on environmentally friendly lines, and the public expect to have to pay for that.
There has been some discussion of repatriating our agriculture policy. As long as we are members of the Common Market, that simply is not possible. If we repatriated our agriculture policy, the French and perhaps others would continue to subsidise their farmers. That is exactly the problem for our pig farmers at the moment. The French are subsidising theirs, but we are not subsidising ours—with the result that they have to sell pigs at between lop and 20p a kilo below the cost of production. Under repatriation, how would we control that sort of problem?
We need an agreement between the 12, the 16, the 20 or whatever the EC becomes. Perhaps we can repatriate some financial policy, but we need carefully to consider the regulatory side. Regulation must be done EC wide, so that we prevent increasing numbers of subsidies.
An interesting letter appeared in The Daily Telegraph the other day, under the title "Stalking farm subsidies":
We want to bring down support prices to the point where supply and demand are brought into balance. This would enable supply controls such as production quotas to be dismantled. Where compensation for price cuts is provided in the form of direct aids, this should be progressively reduced.

My right hon. Friend may recognise those words—they appeared in her letter of 5 February. I agree with every word of it.
It would be wrong to follow the example of New Zealand in this matter as long as we remain in the EC. An excellent article in The Daily Telegraph of 17 March described how New Zealand has completely deregulated its agriculture. Despite predictions of doom and gloom that many of New Zealand's 60,000 farmers would go out of business, in the event only 1,500 went out of business. Perhaps many years from now we will be able to deregulate our agriculture, but it will never be possible to do so completely while we are a member of the European Union.
I should like to correct a wrong fact adduced earlier in the debate. Four countries are about to enter the EC. One of them, Sweden, has to a large extent deregulated its agriculture already. It will be a large net contributor to the EC—it will contribute about £1 billion, despite having a population of only seven or eight million. That compares with our contribution of £2 billion and our population of 56 million. Let us hope that these large net contributors join soon and bring some of their glasnost to the common agricultural policy so that we can progressively move towards deregulation and the repatriation of some budgetary mechanisms while retaining the regulatory mechanisms.
Let us ensure that GATT really works, and that we do not end up having to set aside more and more land just to accommodate the Americans, who would then increase their production and take our markets.

Mr. George Stevenson: I should like to begin by expressing agreement with the comment of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that this debate must be viewed in context. Its context is the reform of the common agricultural policy. The right hon. Lady was right to say that the farmers are to be commended. We should, indeed, commend the workers and all those who live in increasingly difficult circumstances in rural communities, which cannot, of course, be divorced from agriculture.
In the short time that is available, I shall concentrate on the issue of costs and what has happened since the introduction of the reforms. Clearly there is among hon. Members, including myself, a feeling that the reforms that have been introduced since 1992 have taken on all the attributes of a mirage. A person is in the desert and is desperate. He thinks that he has found something to meet his needs, but then it disappears. The CAP reforms of 1992 have taken on those attributes.
One means of establishing the truth of this assertion is to consider costs. The Minister told us that the reforms would keep costs within agricultural guidelines. Nothing of the sort has happened. In the time available I cannot go into great detail, but I can say that since 1992 expenditure on CAP guarantees has increased by no less than £4.2 billion—not bad going. According to the European Commission, the guidelines will not be breached next year —the figure is about 37 billion ecu, which I reckon is about £33 billion—provided that no account is taken of the cost of devaluation and of the monetary changes, which is about £1.16 billion; that we transfer £900 million of olive oil support to 1996 and take no account of it; and that we start to spend the monetary reserve even before the budget is


agreed. I should remind the House that the monetary reserve was created outside the guidelines to meet fluctuations in exchange rates. Thus, unless the Minister, when she is battling for us, can change the situation, we shall have to spend money outside the guidelines to keep us within. That is absolutely crazy.
Those costs will not disappear, so they will have to be met. I estimate that between 1992 and next year we shall have increased agricultural expenditure by approximately £6 billion. These are not my figures or the Labour party's; they were produced by the Commission.
Are right hon. and hon. Members satisfied that simply noting such a horrendous situation—which is what the motion we are debating asks us to do—is good enough? Opposition Members think not. We believe that it is necessary to take a far stronger line in respect of these things. It is for that reason that we think it important to point out exactly what has happened since 1992.
What does the situation demonstrate? It demonstrates that CAP expenditure is as much out of control today as it has ever been. In fact, it is accelerating. The increase that I have mentioned amounts to about 30 per cent. The consumer and the taxpayer are being clobbered. We are pouring increasing resources into the black hole that is called the CAP. The 1993–94 budget is bogus, as is accepted by the Commission, and I have demonstrated as briefly as possible that the 1995 budget is a cruel illusion.
The CAP has a voracious appetite. We hear a great deal of Euro-sceptic jargon—"We're battling for Britain", and so on—but none of this would have happened, and there would have been none of these horrendous increases, if the Government had not agreed. That point can fairly be put to the Minister. Why, over this period, have Ministers, on behalf of the Government:, gone to Brussels saying "We're fighting our corner. We're going to control costs'"? Next year the Government, if they agree to this arrangement —and I hope that they will not—will have presided over an increase of about £6 billion.
I have one or two questions to which I hope the Minister will reply in his winding-up speech. Where will the Minister find the £1.2 billion that, according to the Commission, represents the cost of the monetary alignments of black Wednesday? Will the Minister agree that the £900 million of olive oil payments that, according to the Commission, should be deferred until October 1995 should be transferred into the 1996 budget? If so, what justification can the Minister give us this evening to agree to defer nearly £1 billion of expenditure simply to remain within the guidelines?
Will the Government agree to spend the money in reserve? It was never intended to bolster up a crisis within the CAP but only to meet changes in the exchange rate. It was never intended for that purpose and it is outside the guidelines.
In the last few minutes of my speech I shall make one or two observations on specific issues. On cereals, the Commission stated that cereal stocks were 43 million tonnes at the beginning of 1994. It estimates that, even with the reforms in place, by 1998 we shall have 175 million tonnes of production and, if everything goes right this year, we may end up with 33 million tonnes of cereals in store. I remember the halcyon clays before the reforms when we had only 18 million tonnes of cereal in store. What progress have we made when the reforms bite into the regimes yet we end up with twice the amount of cereals in store?
On milk, the Secretary of State is quite right not to agree to quota cuts in the present circumstances, but logically, if we do not press for a quota cut, we shall remain in structural surplus because the quota is 12 per cent. more than consumption. In addition, the disadvantages to the United Kingdom because we are not self-sufficient will continue. That is not good enough; we need something more positive from the Minister. Although she is right in the circumstances, we cannot tolerate continued structural surpluses because of the quotas while the United Kingdom continues to be disadvantaged.
On beef, clearly there have to be some changes because of the 1992 reference year. The regional quotas that qualify for the special premium are now out of control—something like 30 per cent. more than was anticipated. However, there is great danger in agreeing to a reduction in the density from three to 2.5 livestock units per hectare. That will hit the United Kingdom harder than elsewhere.
The Select Committee report stated that the CAP price proposals
constitute an issue of considerable political importance".
The Select Committee is right. The issues that are of considerable political importance demand that tonight we do something more than simply note the United Kingdom's horrendous and critical position.
I hope that the Minister is right. I hope that she can get across her view that the 1992 reforms were the first step. In the light of the agricultural crisis in our rural communities, what is the next step?

Mr. Walter Sweeney: I take issue with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), who criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for not being present this evening. That was rather cheap, considering the efforts made by my right hon. Friend, of which the hon. Gentleman must have been aware, to secure equal treatment for cereal farmers in England and Wales. Despite his efforts, he was unsuccessful, but at least we have a scheme that takes account of the high yield produced by cereal farmers in constituencies such as mine in the Vale of Glamorgan. I certainly welcome half a loaf as better than none.

Mr. Ainger: But does not the hon. Gentleman accept that his farmers in the Vale of Glamorgan, and mine in Pembrokeshire, are discriminated against—if they were jetting the same yields as their English counterparts, they would receive significantly more, whether they are in less-favoured areas or non-LFA areas? Does he accept that the Minister of State may well have done his best, but that it was not good enough?

Mr. Sweeney: I have already accepted that my hon. Friend was unsuccessful, but the point that I am making is that he has tried on behalf of farmers in Wales. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the background to the discrimination between Welsh and English farmers is based on the fact that, by and large, because of the nature of the terrain, yields in Wales can be expected to be substantially lower than those in England. Clearly, in parts of Wales, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the yield is comparable in every way with parts of England. That is why I feel that the solution, although less than ideal, is certainly better than the original proposal.
A remarkable feature about the debate has been the range of views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, which seem to have favoured radical reform of the CAP, and the considerable support for repatriation of agricultural policies. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and her predecessor on their efforts to reform and improve the CAP. I am sure that all hon. Members know full well the difficulties that the Government face in securing improvements. I wish my right hon. Friend well. If I may use an agricultural metaphor, I hope that she will take the bull by the horns and urge substantial reform.
Personally, I would like to see the CAP in its present form abolished. On the need for reform, a few statistics will make my point for me. The average family of four in the UK pays more than £18 per week extra for its food as a result of the CAP in its present form. No other industry enjoys that level of subsidy. In 1992, consumers in the European Union paid an extra 40 per cent. for agricultural products. In 1992, the average value of subsidy to European Union farmers was equivalent to 47 per cent. of their income. With the prospect of four new members joining the European Union, the level of subsidy may become even worse. The average value of subsidies to Finnish farmers is 68 per cent.; to Norwegian farmers it is 77 per cent.
I found myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) when he pointed out that our constituents might not know very much about the detail, but they know instinctively that they are paying too much for their food as a result of the existing CAP. Naturally, I disagreed with him when he went on to say that he favoured the abolition of set-aside because he felt that it was encouraging hunting. As a hunting supporter, I disagree, although I agree with his underlying sentiment that set-aside has been a failure. Although I start from the Conservative premise that subsidy is a bad thing and should be eradicated, I realise that suddenly to abolish subsidies would harm British farmers and farm workers. Instead of advocating the abolition of subsidies, I therefore suggest that, on an interim basis, farmers should be paid direct payments linked solely to farm income. That would be less market-distorting than subsidies tied to price intervention or production levels.
A system of direct payments would be better in a number of ways. First, the true level of support would be visible through taxes rather than food prices. Secondly, it would be more efficient. Only 40 per cent. of the existing CAP budget goes to farmers, while 60 per cent.—£27.6 billion a year—is spent on administration, the cost of exporting intervention surpluses, storage costs and fraud: in Italy alone, fraud cost £64 million last year.
The link between direct payments and area under-cultivation should be dropped. As I have said, set-aside has not worked; leaving 15 per cent. of arable land to one side reduced last year's cereal harvest by only 1.4 per cent.
Agricultural subsidies in Europe are designed to keep inefficient producers working: the same applies to steel and other problem industries. Politicians in each member state should consult their constituents, and decide how much subsidy is appropriate. The legitimate desire to protect the countryside might be served better by the establishment of national parks than by subsidies for inefficient farmers.
According to a recent report from the Centre for Economic Policy Research, agriculture is a major area to which the principle of subsidiarity should be extended. The European Union should have no role in the payment of incomes, as conditions and practices vary throughout the Union. That point was made very well by the Opposition earlier. Conditions in England may be very different from those in Greece, for example.
The role of the European Union should be confined to the creation of a statutory framework for national income support, to limit market distortions. National Governments would specify income thresholds below which subsidies should be claimed; the European Union would impose a cap limiting the maximum subsidy available. Within the new framework, each national Government would be free to decide how large their nationally financed direct income support should be. No longer would British citizens have to subsidise French farmers indirectly by paying a much higher net contribution to the European Union budget.
The ultimate objective should be the abolition of agricultural subsidies throughout the European Union. Meanwhile, the new framework would be a great step forward for the EU—a step away from the common agricultural policy and towards cheaper food, lower subsidies and more competitive markets.

Mr. Nick Ainger: As I have already been fortunate enough to make a couple of interventions about some of the issues with which I wished to deal, my speech will be brief.
Today's debate has confirmed that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree on one thing: the common agricultural policy as a whole is a failure. Moreover, as is suggested by the figures cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), the reforms have not produced the result that the Minister claimed they would produce a year or so ago.
There is an additional measure of the success or failure of the CAP. Not only is the budget growing and growing; those who were supposed ultimately to benefit from the system—consumer and producers—are not doing so. Farmers—especially those in less-favoured areas who should be receiving reasonable hill livestock compensatory allowances and the like—are feeling the pinch.
The Minister tells us regularly, in various press releases, that hill farmers have received significant increases—up to 30 per cent. year on year, which was the figure between 1991–92 and 1992–93. Sadly, however, the base year to which the Minister refers—1991–92—was the worst year for nearly a decade in terms of farmers' net incomes. Using that as a base year was totally and, in my view, deliberately misleading, and did not warrant the cuts that were made last year and this year.
Our rural areas have a serious problem. Because of the CAP's failure, we are not encouraging young people into farming; the age profile in the industry is rising every year. The latest figures, based on the past 15 years, show that, on average, 26 people leave farming every day. That is catastrophic for rural regions, which many hon. Members represent.
There seems to be a consensus—if one can use that term these days—among hon. Members on both sides of the House that we must move away from a CAP that deals only with price and product support towards a CAP that


involves the environment and people rather than products. If we do that, we shall be moving in the right direction. It is nice to see Conservative Members moving in that direction because I fought the 1992 general election on the basis of such a policy. The Conservative party is at last starting to listen to what not only the Labour party, but people who represent rural communities' interests have been saying for some years.
Sadly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) said, people in rural communities depend not only on CAP subsidies, but on family credit. Many small hill farmers, dairy farmers and sheep farmers, particularly those in Wales, but also those in Cumbria and south-west England, depend on state handouts to support their families. That is further proof of the failure of the CAP.
We have to get to grips with fraud, although that is not such a problem in this country. I am willing to accept that, in the main, the British farmer is honest and tries to earn an honest crust, but there is massive scandal and fraud throughout Europe, which is not being properly tackled.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the need to return to national aids, yet, sadly, the one national aid over which we had some control—the hill livestock compensatory allowance—has been cut again and again. I accept Conservative Members' comments that the HLCA is not necessarily a good national aid because it is a headage payment, but at least it was there in principle and the Government had a great deal of control over it. They should have considered applying the HLCA not on a headage basis, but on the basis of environmentally sensitive farming, lower inputs and lower outputs.
I shall finish because my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has just given me a dirty look. We in Wales expect the Secretary of State for Wales to be involved in debates such as today's. It is rare that we have a full day's debate on agriculture. I should have thought that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State could have attended part of the debate. Every time I intervened to ask about a Welsh issue I was told by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that it was not her concern, but a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales. When we debate agriculture in the whole of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State for Wales should be present for some of the time.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I welcome the opportunity to debate agriculture and to examine the effectiveness of CAP reform and how it operates in the United Kingdom. The Labour party has always expressed doubt about the CAP reforms and whether they would work. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) made that clear in moving the amendment, and demonstrated the weaknesses of the scheme.
The set-aside scheme, which is at the heart of the reforms, wastes resources. We are also not convinced that it will meet its objectives. Agra Europe wrote on 29 October last year:
The problem for the Community is … that the new support system and current agricultural technology is encouraging farmers to minimise the impact of set-aside on cereals and, in particular, to maximise their output of high yielding wheats.
The report also contains some good news, however. It went on to say that, because of the new technology, United

Kingdom farmers would be far more competitive in a world market than some of them seem to believe. Recent figures appear to bear that out.
The 1993 provisional figures for wheat, for example, show that, although the area for wheat production is down —from 2,067 million hectares last year to 1,759 million this year—the yield increased from 6.82 tonnes per hectare in 1992 to 7.31 tonnes in 1993. I know that yields can be influenced by the weather, but the yield in 1993 was the highest since 1989, and it was higher than average yields between 1982 and 1984, which were 6.81 tonnes.
European agriculture is still a heavily subsidised sector. Measurements of producer subsidy equivalents, produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, show that European Community farmers obtain 47 per cent. of their income from agricultural support, compared with 28 per cent. for farmers in the United States.
When considering the United States, it is also worth considering the implications of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Not much has been said about GATT, apart from the fact that there is a linkage between it and the CAP reforms. However, some serious issues have yet to be resolved in relation to the GATT agreement.
The first is the question of opening EC markets to food imports, amounting to 5 per cent. of domestic consumption. I am not clear whether that figure is for the Community or whether it is an aggregate figure. It could mean that the United Kingdom, which has traditionally imported a high percentage of its food, could be taking more than its fair share of that 5 per cent. penetration.
The second problem is that of food additives and drugs in animals, which is very serious. In many cases, drugs are used abroad, but their sale is banned in the European Community. Hormones in beef are one example, and bovine somatrophin—BST—which is being legalised in the United States, is banned in this country at least until the end of the year. We must deal with those problems within GATT.
Many third countries with poor animal welfare standards and almost non-existent enforcement procedures will export meat products to this country. We need to ensure that our producers, who have invested in high welfare standards, are protected from what I regard as unfair competition. Ways of doing so might include clearer labelling, which will allow consumers to ensure that they are choosing foods that have been produced to the highest standards. Another way is to put minimum standards into place through the GATT agreements and negotiations.
Animal welfare standards are a cost to the industry, but it is a cost that many within it are prepared to accept. Such high standards can be a marketing aid, and I was pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary endorsed that view in Agriculture questions today, when he recognised that it can be an advantage to market food that is produced in this country to the highest standards.
What is the sense in exporting low-value live sheep to the continent, where farmers simply add value to the carcasses? Apart from exporting live animals, that is exporting British jobs, and it does not help the food deficit in this country.
I was appalled to hear the hot.. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) say that he hoped that the Minister would resist improvements in animal transportation times, because it would affect his farmers and the live export of sheep. The French must be laughing all the way to the bank


at the attitude of the hon. Member for Hexham. We should ensure that we are adding value, rather than simply exporting live animals, which is not good economically or in animal welfare terms.
Sheep exports increased from 81,000 in 1985 to between 2 million and 3 million in 1993, and that concerns me. We should be proud of the quality of British lamb, as well as that of our beef and pork, which are also mainly a carcass trade. We should vigorously market British lamb as chilled carcasses—marketing on the hook, rather than on the hoof.
It is a pity that Food From Britain has to operate with one hand tied behind its back, due to the way in which the Government have frozen its budget and restricted its activities. If we are to tackle the deficit in food imports, we must have a stronger marketing system.
The problem is that the CAP is still hugely expensive and wasteful. The original scheme proposed some modulation of support, as has been mentioned by the hon. Members who spoke on behalf of small farmers. It is fair to ask whether a limit should be imposed on the people who receive their highest income from agricultural support.
In response to a written question, we learned that the highest individual payment to a fanner was £1.25 million —[Interruption.] Indeed, that was the Co-op. The Co-op manages farms; that is a growing part of its business. So it is not fair to suggest that one individual farmer received that money. Nevertheless, the written answer also informed us that other people were receiving payments of more than £1 million, and that many farmers were in receipt of payments running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. We should give some consideration to people who are in a less fortunate position in terms of agricultural support.
The detail of the CAP figures shows that there are still a number of substantial increases, although expenditure is supposed to be decreasing. Cereal compensatory payments are increasing by 40 per cent., although admittedly as part of the agreed reforms. Potato starch compensation is also being increased by 40 per cent. That does not apply to the United Kingdom, but it still adds to the overall costs.
Olive oil production aid is up by 44.7 per cent. Again, that is not a United Kingdom matter. The beef annual premium is increasing by 25 per cent. and the suckler cow premium by 36 per cent. That represents unfair competition with the unsubsidised pig and poultry sectors which, as we have heard, are going through a difficult period.
The total EC agricultural support budget for the current year will increase by 23 billion ecu. We want the overall budget to decrease, not to increase in that way. A CAP budget currently running at about £30 billion is obviously open to fraud, as has been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
There are more interesting issues buried in the papers that the Government must examine, and must press firmly in the Council of Ministers. Tobacco is certainly one such issue. Some hon. Members have already said what nonsense the tobacco subsidy is. According to the figures, tobacco prices have been frozen for this year and will not be reviewed until 1996. I see no reason why the review should be put off for so long. Alternatives must be sought

for people who depend on tobacco crops, but at present tobacco is the most heavily subsidised crop per hectare in the European Community.
Protein plants, too, are subsidised, in the form of dried fodder payments, which have been identified as costly and inefficient. Fibre plant subsidies, which include silkworm subsidy, constitute another costly scheme identified by the Court of Auditors as open to fraud. Linseed, a big United Kingdom crop, still receives a £438 per hectare subsidy, which represents an extremely small reduction.
I am concerned about the proposals to raise the minimum alcoholic strength of wine—although I imagine that some hon. Members will not be too worried about that. The strength is being raised not for the benefit of the consumer, but to reduce current wine surpluses.
Many hon. Members have said that what we need in the CAP is a major shift to decouple subsidy from production. Farmers and the industry as a whole already recognise that. The Labour party wants existing CAP funds to be better used, for the benefit of farmers, farm workers and the wider rural economy.
There are alternatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington and others have mentioned repatriation and subsidiarity—interesting concepts, which need to be examined. However, when we discuss repatriation, we must always bear in mind the need for equality in subsidies between the different agricultural sectors. The market would be distorted without the equality that can come about only through a common policy.
The Labour party welcomes the shift towards environmental support payments. We welcome the increase in environmentally sensitive areas recently announced—something that we have long advocated and for which we have long campaigned. However, the total of all the various schemes for environmental support is only about £100 million, which pales into insignificance when compared with more than £2 billion of subsidy in the arable aid programme and set-aside.
The Government's commitment to the environmental programmes is also in doubt. They have recently cut the farm conservation scheme, and research and development programmes.
In addition, there have been changes to the Agricultural Development Advisory Service, which means that it is no longer regarded as supporting farmers but is evolving into a private consultancy whose services many farmers can no longer afford. The Government have an important role to play in providing such support.
The Government's green credibility has also been damaged by their failure to honour their promise on hedgerow protection. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and his pal the hon. Member for Hexham were involved in hedge-killing activities. Labour Members will not forget their role in destroying a Bill to protect hedgerows, and will remind their constituents of it when the time comes.
There are alternative methods of support through green premium payments, which the Labour party has been advocating. We could promote alternatives, such as the restoration of traditional wetlands, which is advocated in a recent excellent report by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Wetlands can also help to control floods and provide sea defences by the creation of radical habitat creation schemes of salt marsh and reed-beds.
A connected issue, which I hope the Minister will take into account in future negotiations, is that, if we are to use


long-term set-aside for environmental reasons—especially for wet pasture and flood defence—there is a need for grazing on that long-term set-aside. At the moment, such grazing is prohibited under the set-aside regulations. There is a need to negotiate a way of licensing grazing as part of conservation and long-term set-aside management. I hope that the Minister will take that into account.
Diversification can be encouraged through access agreements, and rural planning policies can encourage the use of farm buildings. We also need to encourage more organic farming, which involves an integrated approach. There is a little support for conversion, but in fact organic farming is second only to environmentally sensitive areas in providing an alternative to farmers.
We want to encourage alternative crops—non-food crops, such as linseed for oil, wheat and sugar beet for ethanol, rape for bio-diesel[and biomass schemes. There is still a long way to go, but there are niche markets where a biodegradable fuel would be useful, such as in waterways and sensitive areas.
Lord Carter recently gave an excellent paper in which he identified other markets for bio-oils, such as lubricants, technical oils and chemical feedstock. All these, of course, need support for research and development, and marketing, in partnership with industry. That is something of which the Labour party is not afraid, and we pledge to undertake such research. The money is available. There is a total of £30 billion of CAP funding, which we believe needs a change of direction and application. Only the Labour party can achieve that, because the Government have isolated themselves. They are currently involved in a row and, through their new-found attraction to the block vote, are supporting measures that will make it more difficult to reform the CAP—they are supporting a smaller vote in countries which will, of course, be only too pleased to try to delay it.
Tonight, I had to attend a meeting of Steel Action, a group comprising steelworkers from all over the country. They are asking why the Government are not taking up a real issue in Europe and fighting against unfair steel subsidies, for example, instead of being involved in the nonsense of qualified majority voting. The truth is that someone has recently grabbed the Prime Minister's arm and explained to him that such voting will never lead to reform of the CAP, so we now have a further nonsense of a two-tier approach to qualified majority voting—23 for everything else but 27 for agriculture where it suits the Government.
That approach makes the Government a laughing stock, and alienates support in Europe. It puts at risk the membership of countries that will be net contributors to the CAP and which should be natural allies of this country —or, should I say, of the Labour party, in this instance. There will never be changes unless we work towards co-operation rather than alienation, unless we work for a common position rather than one that cannot stand up to examination but brings the Government into disrepute.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): Before I address this excellent-quality debate, I should say that we have just heard a speech from the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) which convinced us that the

Labour party is bereft of any sensible and positive ideas for agriculture and food in this country. I shall develop that theme in my remarks.
This has been an interesting debate; I genuinely congratulate all hon. Members who took part in it. We had some remarkably thoughtful contributions. In particular, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) on an excellent speech on environmental matters. Clearly, he has carefully thought through his position about the development of the new challenges for agriculture and the environment, and I look forward to him contributing to the work that will be undertaken to assess the environmental impact of set-aside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) made an extremely well-thought-out and thought-provoking speech, taking into account the expansion of the Community, the challenges it will face and some of the real long-term challenges as it comes to terms with large-scale expenditure on agriculture. That was the theme of many other speeches.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) and for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) raised issues connected with horticulture and the food industry. They did so with compassion, conviction and knowledge, and I shall deal with some of their detailed points in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) dealt with his constituency knowledge about the problems of hill farmers and animal welfare—key issues in a debate on agriculture.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) took us to a central issue that underpins much of our consideration of the common agricultural policy—the context in which we see the CAP in terms of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. If the United Kingdom had not worked tirelessly behind the scenes, we would not have reached a GATT agreement; we would be living in a world facing protectionism. Sadly, that is something that has been lost by Labour Members.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) talked about the cost of the common agricultural policy.
I shall speak in more detail about the speeches by Opposition Members, especially the hon. Members for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I was taken by the comments of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) who talked about a subject that I know well—horticulture. I was grateful for his contribution.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) talked about the change in the common agricultural policy; the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) took us through his view of the environment; and the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) gave us perhaps a cautionary tale about what change in agriculture means in terms of the effect on employment.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East perhaps omitted a very important point, which has been missing from the debate—the fact that agriculture is the start of the food chain. Agriculture is the process which provides food manufacturers, food producers, and ultimately the consumer, with the food we eat. As the number involved in primary production has declined, we may see more people entering other parts of the food chain.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) surprised me, because he did not mention his marvellous early potatoes. I thought that he might at least take the


opportunity of a little light advertising, but he failed to do so. However, he joined in the wider debate on the reform of the common agricultural policy.
This debate is of considerable importance, because it touches the lives of those who form 2 per cent. of our work force. As I said, it is important because it is the starting point for our food chain. It is also important because the issues that we have discussed touch on the whole question of the well-being of our rural communities.
In a year in which we will see an increase in farm incomes, and other matters which I shall refer to in a moment, we can see a strengthening of the rural economy. The work that we have done—for example, in campaigning for funding under things such as objective 5b status—is a clear sign of the coherence of our policies in terms of the rural economy. The debate has demonstrated that it is in the Conservative party that some of the best thinking is going on about the future of the common agricultural policy in terms of its impact on our rural communities.
I must say that I trembled slightly in preparing for this debate, because I had understood that the Opposition were to make an announcement on the CAP. I stood by the Press Association printout expecting to see a long list of quite devastating new thinking; to my absolute relief, I got a copy of the Labour party press release on the CAP.
I have here a £5 note. I am not offering it to anybody this evening, but I was offering it earlier to anybody who could find a vestige of an agricultural policy from the Opposition. This is safe money, because nobody has managed to find that missing policy. I searched the Opposition's manifesto for a reference to agriculture, but I could not find one. I searched today's document for some new policy. It says that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East condemns 14 years of Tory Euro-waste. All I can say is that this document is a waste of the paper it is printed on.
It is the Conservative party which can take the credit for being the driving force behind the reform of the CAP. It is this party which is conscious of cost and which has tried hard, within the overall budgetary limits which my right hon. Friend mentioned, to drive down EC expenditure on the CAP. It is this party which has been taking the lead on integration of, for example, environmental policies with the reform of the CAP. It is this party which understands about free trade and its importance to agriculture.
That is why we have been pioneering in terms of the GATT. This party understands that the success of our food and agriculture industry is determined by consumers buying the excellence of its output, as good wholesome food. I looked to see if the Labour party had any ideas on the subject, and I saw what it said when its former leader was in office. The Labour party said that dismantling the CAP would provide money which—believe or not—could be spent on the cohesion fund, which transfers money to poorer European Union nations.
This evening, we have heard nothing to rebut that position. I can only assume that that largesse from Walworth road—

Mr. Morley: Who said that?

Mr. Jack: It was the former leader of the hon. Gentleman's party. He may not be in touch with what his party's former leader used to say.
The Opposition have also said quite clearly in other documents that the savings which they see coming from changes in the CAP should go towards financing other Community projects. We have heard nothing this evening to rebut that, and I can only assume that that is their objective.
I was interested that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East entertained us with some of his notions about social policy and his view of agriculture. One thing which the Labour party would like to sign up to is the social chapter. I have noticed recent reports in the press which have suggested that the hon. Gentleman's party might want to introduce some social benefits for part-time workers. Perhaps he has not costed that, but if his proposals were applied to part-time workers in agriculture, he would simply add about £11 million to the cost of UK agriculture. That is how much the Labour party cares about the cost base of our agricultural production.
The hon. Gentleman told us that, in some way, the Government had left agriculture in a disastrous position.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Hear, hear.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman should wait until I give him the facts.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said that we had done nothing to strengthen agriculture. Our economic policies in fact reduced interest rates to farmers in 1992 by £743 million and in 1993 by £506 million. There was an increase in tractor sales in 1993 of 19,000. Those are tangible examples of the better state of agriculture that the Government have assisted in bringing about.
The hon. Gentleman also challenged the Conservative party, as did several Opposition Members, about our general policies on the way forward for the common agricultural policy. I want to remind the hon. Gentleman of what my right hon. Friend the Minister said on 7 January. I think that that will be of interest to the whole House, because it maps out succinctly and clearly the Government's view of the way forward. She said:
Over time we want to see a further reduction in support prices to levels which bring supply and demand into balance. If we succeed in this, artificial production controls will become redundant. However, I will not pretend that reforming the CAP in the way that we want will be an easy task. Most of our Community partners will take a good deal of persuading.
I have listened to the voices from the Opposition Benches attacking the Government and Conservative Members as though we were the villains of the piece, when it was we who introduced help to the campaign for financial stabilisers; we who fought for legally binding ceilings on the Community expenditure on the budget; we who campaigned for the reform of the common agricultural policy; we who campaigned for the GATT reform; and we who achieved the latest breakthrough in terms of budgetary discipline and control of fraud.
I suggest that Opposition Members spend some of their energy and time speaking to their counterparts in France, Italy, Spain and Germany—the countries that have been the bulwarks against the positive reform of the common agricultural policy that we want.
My right hon. Friend is not only wedded to those excellent words of general policy, but supports the next stage of change in the common agricultural policy—the reforms of the regime of sugar, of olive oil, wine, fruit and vegetables. There is much more to be done. Beef will have to be considered. Those things are on our agenda, but we


are but one of 12 nations in the Community, and we have a powerful job persuading them of the case. Nevertheless, it is a task that we shall not shirk.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East attacked us for delaying the reform of the milk marketing scheme. I refer him to the report of the Select Committee, in which the blame for that was clearly put on the cavalier attitude of the milk marketing board.
The hon. Members for Edinburgh, East, for North Cornwall, Carmarthen and for Pembroke, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), all mentioned the reductions in hill livestock compensatory allowances.
My right hon. Friend had a difficult balancing job in reaching her decision, but she realised that about £550 million of income would be available to farmers in the hills. She considered the situation in which, in 1991–92, the income of farmers—especially sheep farmers—in the severely disadvantaged areas was £19,000, of which £7,000 came from HLCAs. She found that the amount of subsidy that they received had increased in 1993–94 to £27,000, of which £5,500 would come from HLCAs. She realised that more income was coming from the increases in sheep annual premium and other sources of income, —for example, environmental programmes—and took a sensible decision to balance the difficulties of the hills with the need for budgetary constraint. She achieved a sensible position, which has allowed the incomes of farmers in the hills to increase, but which has made sense in terms of our United Kingdom Budget.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned research and development grants. He was perhaps unfair to say that, in spite of minimal cuts—£6 million in the agricultural sector—we shall spend £125 million on agricultural research and development. I refer him to my right hon. Friend's latest announcement, on 23 March, about new research fellowships in food process engineering. That is a clear example of the way in which we envisage things progressing in research.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall is a member of the Liberal party, which produces a thing called "The Farmers' Charter." That charter tells us that his party supports the reform of the CAP so that farmers are paid "proper prices". What on earth does he mean by "proper prices"? He told us nothing of that. He says that his policy is to support small and family farms, but at the same time he does not want Britain's large farms to be disadvantaged, because the average size of our farms is greater. The hon. Member's policies are utterly, totally and completely inconsistent. He says in a document that he wants to reform the price structure of the CAP, but he does not want Britain's farmers to be exposed to unfettered world competition. The best he can find is local management agreements administered by councillors.
My hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) and for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) mentioned important matters connected with the fruit and vegetable regime. I assure them that we shall campaign strongly for a reform of the intervention regime. If that is accepted by other Community countries, it opens the way for the grubbing-up grants which they seek.
This has been an extremely good debate on agriculture, but it has clearly shown that it is the Conservative party that understands food and farming, and that we go forward with strength, from seed to supermarket.

Question put, That the amendment be made—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 298

Division No. 180]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fraser, John


Ainger, Nick
Fyfe, Maria


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Galloway, George


Allen, Graham
Gapes, Mike


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Garrett, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
George, Bruce


Armstrong, Hilary
Gerrard, Neil


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashton, Joe
Gordon, Mildred


Austin-Walker, John
Graham, Thomas


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Barnes, Harry
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Battle, John
Grocott, Bruce


Bayley, Hugh
Gunnell, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Hain, Peter


Bell, Stuart
Hall, Mike


Bennett, Andrew F.
Hanson, David


Benton, Joe
Hardy, Peter


Bermingham, Gerald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Berry, Dr. Roger
Henderson, Doug


Betts, Clive
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Boateng, Paul
Hinchliffe, David


Boyes, Roland
Hoey, Kate


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hood, Jimmy


Burden, Richard
Hoon, Geoffrey


Byers, Stephen
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Caborn, Richard
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Callaghan, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Canavan, Dennis
Hutton, John


Cann, Jamie
Illsley, Eric


Chisholm, Malcolm
Ingram, Adam


Clapham, Michael
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jamieson, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Janner, Greville


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Connarty, Michael
Jowell, Tessa


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Keen, Alan


Corston, Ms Jean
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cousins, Jim
Khabra, Piara S.


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cummings, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lewis, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Darling, Alistair
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davidson, Ian
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAllion, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Ian


Denham, John
Macdonald, Calum


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
Mackinlay, Andrew


Donohoe, Brian H.
McLeish, Henry


Dowd, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McNamara, Kevin


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McWilliam, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Enright, Derek
Marek, Dr John


Etherington, Bill
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fatchett, Derek
Martlew, Eric


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Maxton, John


Fisher, Mark
Meacher, Michael


Flynn, Paul
Meale, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Michael, Alun


Foulkes, George
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)






Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Salmond, Alex


Miller, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Sheerman, Barry


Morgan, Rhodri
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Morley, Elliot
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Simpson, Alan


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Skinner, Dennis


Mowlam, Marjorie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mudie, George
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Murphy, Paul
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Spearing, Nigel


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


O'Hara, Edward
Steinberg, Gerry


Olner, William
Stevenson, George


O'Neill, Martin
Stott, Roger


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Parry, Robert
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Patchett, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Pendry, Tom
Tyler, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Vaz, Keith


Pike, Peter L.
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watson, Mike


Prescott, John
Welsh, Andrew


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wilson, Brian


Radice, Giles
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart
Wise, Audrey


Raynsford, Nick
Worthington, Tony


Redmond, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Reid, Dr John
Wright, Dr Tony


Rendel, David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)



Roche, Mrs. Barbara



Rogers, Allan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. John Spellar.


Ruddock, Joan





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Aitken, Jonathan
Budgen, Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butler, Peter


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cash, William


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Churchill, Mr


Ashby, David
Clappison, James


Aspinwall, Jack
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coe, Sebastian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Congdon, David


Baldry, Tony
Conway, Derek


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bates, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Batiste, Spencer
Cormack, Patrick


Bellingham, Henry
Couchman, James


Bendall, Vivian
Cran, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Booth, Hartley
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bowden, Andrew
Devlin, Tim


Bowis, John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dicks, Terry


Brandreth, Gyles
Dorrell, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bright, Graham
Dover, Den


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan, Alan


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Dunn, Bob





Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Elletson, Harold
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Faber, David
Legg, Barry


Fabricant, Michael
Leigh, Edward


Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lidington, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacKay, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fry, Sir Peter
Madel, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gallie, Phil
Malone, Gerald


Gardiner, Sir George
Mans, Keith


Garnier, Edward
Marlow, Tony


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mates, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gorst, John
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hague, William
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Needham, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Haselnurst, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heald, Oliver
Norris, Steve


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hendry, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Paice, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pawsey, James


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Ronton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)






Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shersby, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Sims, Roger
Tracey, Richard


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tredinnick, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Trend, Michael


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Soames, Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Speed, Sir Keith
Viggers, Peter


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Walden, George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waller, Gary


Spring, Richard
Ward, John


Sproat, Iain
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Waterson, Nigel


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Watts, John


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Stephen, Michael
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stern, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Allan
Whittingdale, John


Streeter, Gary
Widdecombe, Ann


Sumberg, David
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sweeney, Walter
Wilkinson, John


Sykes, John
Willetts, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thomason, Roy
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)



Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomton, Sir Malcolm
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Thumham, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4616/94 on agricultural prices for 1994–95 and related measures, and of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food publication 'Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1993'.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:

Consolidated Fund Act 1994.
New Towns (Amendment) Act 1994.
Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1994.
Insolvency Act 1994.
Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Act 1994.
British Railways (Order Confirmation) Act 1994.
British Railways (No. 2) (Order Confirmation) Act 1994.
British Railways (No. 3) (Order Confirmation) Act 1994.
Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 1994.

Parliamentary Commissioner Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South): I am not against this money resolution, but I believe that when money resolutions come before the House—except when there is an open and shut case for supporting them, and we know how much finance the House is committing—the Minister responsible ought to give the House an explanation of them.
The Bill allows the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate administrative actions taken by administrative staff of certain tribunals, which are listed in new schedule 4. The relevant tribunals, for the purposes of section 5(7), are:
Tribunals constituted in Great Britain under regulations made under section 4 of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. Child support appeal tribunals constituted under section 21 of the Child Support Act 1991. Social security appeal tribunals constituted under section 41 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Disability appeal tribunals constituted under section 43 of that Act. Medical appeal tribunals constituted under section 50 of that Act.
All these are clearly defined areas in which the Parliamentary Commissioner is to have his powers extended, and I welcome that.
This money resolution is not like the one attached to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. All hon. Members recognise that as a Bill that will not need similar examination. This Bill, however, is rather more vague in its application. I am sure that the Minister will be able to give us some idea of the amount of money that Parliament will provide—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What does the Bill say?

Mr. Cryer: Private Members' Bills do not offer the same detail as the Government can provide. Government Bills always include information about their financial effects. It provides Parliament with a helpful guide if we are told about those effects. With private Members' Bills, therefore, it is all the more relevant that the Minister should outline the sort of expenditure that he anticipates. I do not think that it will be very much, but it is useful to obtain such information from Ministers.
Before I began speaking on money resolutions, they often went through on the nod and Ministers sometimes did not even bother to turn up. They were certainly not briefed. Now they are briefed and are here to answer questions that hon. Members want to ask them.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman flatters himself.

Mr. Cryer: I probably have more experience than most hon. Members in discussing money resolutions. When I started, Ministers were not here, or they were not briefed, but now they are—that is a welcome development. I assure the Minister that I am not attempting to be hostile to his


Bill, but I assume that if he had had the financial information before now he would have put it in an explanatory memorandum to the Bill—there is no reason not to do that.
Private Members who promote legislation in this place do so willingly, to serve some useful purpose. We realise that only legislation of this sort will get through private Members' time on a Friday in any case. Thus it seems to me that money resolution debates serve a very useful purpose. I assume that the fact that the motion stands on the Order Paper in the name of a member of the Government indicates Government support for the Bill. No doubt the Minister will be able to confirm that. It is helpful to have a look at these matters. The Minister will be able to use the information that his Department provides, and it will appear in the record.
Private Members' Bills that are enacted have exactly the same force as the most important Government legislation. In the case of their own Bill, Ministers provide some sort of estimate—alas, frequently inaccurate. In this case too there ought to be some sort of estimate so that when the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, we shall not find that, with soaring expenses, the money provided by Parliament is virtually open ended. I realise that the various votes that Parliament approves each year constitute one of the limiting factors in public expenditure. None the less, we need some idea of the proportion of funds that will be taken up by the implementation of this legislation.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend plays a very useful role by speaking in debates on money resolutions. There is no doubt that this helps the Government in some respects. It makes them study more closely the financial implications of legislation, and it ensures that Whips are here to sort things out at the end of the day. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that during the last parliamentary Session the House spent 11 hours debating money resolutions. I believe that my hon. Friend was involved in every debate. I always think that my hon. Friend's contributions at the end of the day are like the epilogues that one used to see on television.
My hon. Friend plays a useful role also by ensuring that members of staff are provided with taxis to take them home. [Interruption.] I think that this is important, as does my hon. Friend. It has to be remembered that in this building there are workers—real workers—who do not have a taxi paid for by the state until after 10.30 pm. In this respect my hon. Friend does an important job.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend, in his brief intervention, has refuted a rather cheap sneer from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who suggested that money resolution debates are not useful. I have always maintained that they are very useful. The time allowed is 45 minutes, but there are some people who want to abolish them. That would be wrong. For many years during my membership of the House money resolutions simply were not discussed.
On occasions, during the course of such a debate, it has been discovered that the money resolution did not cover the authority provided by the Bill. Firearms legislation is an example. In one case, two additional money resolutions were required. There is no doubt that some of the omissions that had to be dealt with by the additional money resolutions were discovered during debate on the first one.

Mr. David Harris: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that, as indicated by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), his only reason for keeping us here at this hour is to enable staff members to be provided with taxis home? Can he give us an estimate of the cost to the taxpayer?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I advise the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) not to do so. He must return to the money resolution.

Mr. Cryer: I would not go down that road in any case, as I am very concerned about the expenditure of money. I have listed the relevant tribunals for the purposes of section 5(7) of the original Act and have related them to this money resolution, which says that
it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
The Bill must exist to remedy a defect. Can the Minister tell us how many cases the Government expect in an average year? Private Members' Bills—which are very useful, and are debated on Fridays—and money resolutions, are sometimes regarded as a bit of a nuisance, as are the 10 or so Fridays when private Members' Bills are taken. I suspect that we are dealing with a money resolution to implement a private Member's Bill which was taken on a Friday and which, if the Jopling report is implemented, hon. Members would be denied.
I shall not go further down that road, but merely point out the great use of those Bills. Sometimes, because the Government do not have enough time, they provide an hon. Member with legislation to discuss on a Friday, if he is lucky enough to come in the first 10 or so in the ballot. I do not know whether the Bill is an example of that, but if it is, the Minister should have a good knowledge of the background to and reason for the legislation.
The various appeal tribunals are listed in five specific areas, so that the Parliamentary Commissioner can take action where there is cause for concern or complaint about any irregularity.
The complex nature of the Bill, in that it is Government inspired—it is none the worse for that, nor is it any less valuable or important—means that the Government may well have more detailed information than would be available to the ordinary private Member about how the financial effects of the Bill have been calculated, and the number of cases and incidents in each of the five sections listed in schedule 4 that occur each year.
I understand that the Bill was introduced to plug a legislative gap, not a loophole. As a result of demand, the Parliamentary Commissioner should have the opportunity to examine those cases, because of irregularities and complaints, yet his powers do not extend to them. It would be interesting to know from the Minister whether one, two, three, four or a dozen cases are involved. As a result, the extra expenses—which I do not expect will be very much —in which the Parliamentary Commissioner will be involved can be calculated fairly accurately. He or she serves a useful purpose and I am all in favour of that expenditure.
It is worth noting that Labour legislation introduced the Parliamentary Commissioner in the first place, based on the Swedish concept known as the ombudsman, and it has been extended widely. The existence of the Parliamentary


Commissioner shows how even the present ideologically-driven Government recognise that they have to maintain and supplement some means of ensuring that there is some application of justice to administrative corners which affect only a tiny number of people, but which should be sustained because it was a good idea. It stemmed from the infamous Crichel Down case where a great injustice was determined by administrative fiat.
The money resolution provides additional finance of a minor nature to enliven and illuminate administrative loopholes which may be mundane but which are extremely important to the persons involved. I welcome the money resolution. I hope that the Minister will say that a money resolution indicates endorsement of the purpose of the Bill. I hope that he can give me the information that have requested.
Although another money resolution is on the Order Paper, I do not intend to debate it, because I feel that in that instance it is such an open and shut case that debate is not required. I am satisfied in my own mind that the amount of expenditure on that legislation is well curtailed and prescribed. That is not so in this case. Therefore, I hope very much that the Minister will respond with the modest amount of information that I have requested.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): I shall endeavour to help the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in all his interests this evening, to the best of my ability.
This resolution is a standard money resolution, drafted to give Parliament authority to provide money under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: it is a private Member's Bill and it has Government support. That answers his first point.
The resolution has been framed to enable funds to be made available to allow the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to discharge his additional responsibilities under the Bill. These are in respect of investigating the administrative actions of staff in certain tribunals, which the hon. Gentleman has already listed and which are not currently within the Parliamentary Commissioner's jurisdiction.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I could estimate the extent of the costs implicit in the resolution. It is not clear at this stage whether any additional resources would be necessary. It is also not possible to estimate at this stage how many additional complaints would arise, forwarded by hon. Members, as a result of the Bill being passed. I am sure, however, that the Parliamentary Commissioner will endeavour to keep additional costs to a minimum.
It is therefore not possible to make an assessment of the full extent of the costs, but the resolution has been put forward on a contingency basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.

CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Ebbsfleet (International Station)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Mr. Bob Dunn: I am delighted to have been given the opportunity by Madam Speaker to raise the case for an international station at Ebbsfleet. I do so because such a debate is timely and because, in my view, the Ebbsfleet site represents the best location for an intermediate international and domestic station on the channel tunnel rail link. Ebbsfleet as a site is also significant because of its position and proximity to the M25, M20, A2, A20 and the Dartford river crossings.
I welcome the presence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who I know hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a little later in the debate. I am delighted to welcome also my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), who is here tonight to show support for the project. I am grateful to him for the support that he has given me on this occasion, and on a number of challenges that we jointly face in north-west Kent.
To set the debate in context, I quote the words of County Councillor Alexandra Oldfield, Conservative spokesman on transportation. At a meeting of Kent county council's environment planning and transportation committee on 22 March last, she said:
A station at Ebbsfleet is critical to Kent's economy, to its commuters and to the Government's efforts to regenerate the East Thames Corridor.
Exactly so.
I deal now with the need for an intermediate station at Ebbsfleet, and will develop arguments for it on three levels. First, there are the national implications of such a project; secondly, there are the regional implications and the resulting advantages to commuters; finally, there is the impact of the rail link on the communities that I represent in Swanscombe, Southfleet, Betsham and Bean.
In the context of the local communities, I shall refer later to compensation problems and the implications for local roads when construction works on the Ebbsfleet site affect the A2 and associated roads and villages. In the national context—that of Britain plc—the opening of the channel tunnel creates an opportunity and climate for economic and commercial change; that is not in dispute. It will undoubtedly give our manufacturers and traders easier access to the markets of Europe. Equally, in a free-trade context, it will open up our markets to European suppliers.
The site at Ebbsfleet comes within the northern end of the European Dorsale, which comprises 40 per cent. of the population of the European Community. The Dorsale runs from Milan through Frankfurt and Brussels to Dartford and London, and makes up the greatest concentration of cities and economic activity in the Community.
On a regional basis, the Government have promoted, and continue to promote vigorously, a policy of regenerating the east Thames corridor. Apart from being the right policy, the placing of an international station at Ebbsfleet underscores that policy of regeneration by opening up the immediate areas of Swanscombe and Northfleet, as well as north-west Kent in general. Without the station at Ebbsfleet, the channel tunnel rail link offers nothing whatever to north-west Kent.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Is there not a particularly positive opportunity for both the railway and Britain, given that the local authority—which takes a very positive attitude to achieving growth in the area—wants the station at Ebbsfleet? The two fit very well together.

Mr. Dunn: Indeed, there is total amity of support and interest among all local authorities whose areas border the site of the project. They see it as a major contribution to the work flow and employment prospects of our region. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I also welcome the presence of our hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), who entered the Chamber and was struck by the force of the argument being presented in favour of the station at Ebbsfleet.
The existence of the station would move the east Thames corridor concept into a much more positive dimension. I believe that an intermediate station at Ebbsfleet would provide the catalyst for regeneration, leading to the transformation of our local infrastructure and the use of development opportunities to create jobs and new employment vistas for the whole south-east region. Over 30,000 new jobs are expected to be created over a period; that must be good news for north-west Kent.
As for commuter traffic, according to figures that I have obtained, when Ebbsfleet station is opened, the benefit for domestic commuters will be vast. It will offer local commuters a journey time of 17 minutes from Ebbsfleet to St. Pancras. That compares with existing journey times to Charing Cross of 41 minutes from Dartford, 49 minutes from Stone Crossing, 51 minutes from Greenhithe and 53 minutes from Swanscombe.
The St. Pancras terminus is planned to include three platforms for Union Railways' domestic services, which offers a theoretical capacity of 12 trains per hour at peak times. Domestic services would run from the Medway towns and Gravesend, via the north-west Kent line and Union Railways, but would not call at Ebbsfleet. They would also run to St. Pancras from Ebbsfleet as well as from east Kent, via Ashford and Union Railways—that service would almost certainly call at Ebbsfleet.
The balance of frequency of the services has yet to be decided, but at least 50 per cent. of trains are expected to call at Ebbsfleet, which will be a major contribution to the flow of commuter traffic from north-west Kent to London and back again.
I must argue—as nicely as possible—with colleagues on both sides of the House who represent Essex about Which is the worst railway line in the country, as the north-west Kent line takes some beating. Now there are improvements in prospect for Dartford commuters.
I remind the House of the endorsement that the Secretary of State for Transport gave the Ebbsfleet site when he made the statement on the channel tunnel rail link on 24 January 1994:
I turn now to intermediate stations. The decision in October 1991 to route the rail link on an easterly approach into London was based in large part on the opportunities for regeneration.
That must be the key to the development of the project. It is an opportunity for the regeneration of north-west Kent and the east end corridor. The Secretary of State continued:
This solution will provide a fast rail link between London and the channel tunnel. It achieves all the Government's objectives. People who live in Kent will get further improved rail services to London."—[Official Report, 24 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 20–22.]
That is the second of the major building blocks that must


be emphasised tonight. If the project is to gain public credibility, commuters in north-west Kent must benefit as well as those in the Ashford area.
On the downside of the project, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will be able to assure me—if not tonight, at some time in the future —that, when and if Ebbsfleet international station is constructed, he will take every possible step, through the officials in his Department, to ensure that the inevitable blockages on the two carriageways of the A2 are kept to a minimum.
When such blockages occur, their impact and the amount of traffic moving from the A2 to the country lanes on either side must be taken into account. Any hon. Member who represents Kent can assure the House that, as soon as the A2 is blocked, a phenomenal amount of traffic moves on to the country lanes. If that is to happen for two or three years, the implications and impact must be carefully thought out.
On the compensation arrangements for those of my constituents who will be disadvantaged by the reopening of the Gravesend west spur line, I hope that my right hon. Friend will assure me that these arrangements will be fully explained to those of my constituents who are affected, and that those who find themselves outside the line rather than within it understand the opportunities for appeal. I also hope that the arrangements will be as generous as possible, given that many people face the prospect of further blight and a further loss of value for their properties.
I believe the station to be a winning project. It can win over the people of north-west Kent, and I hope that the Minister will be won over by our arguments tonight.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for initiating the debate, and I pay tribute to him for the leading part that he is taking in the campaign for Ebbsfleet international station. The station will be good for the rail link and for the south-east of England, good for north-west Kent, and above all, from my point of view, good for Gravesham.
North-west Kent is in transition. Only 20 years ago, the economy of the area was based on heavy industries such as cement and paper, which left a legacy of empty acres of quarries and pits. We are now on course for new light industry and commercial and service industries. Those have been helped by the Government, by means of the enterprise zones at Springhead and the Imperial business park.
The Government are now pressing ahead with their creative plans for the east Thames corridor, and those can be developed there because, uniquely at Ebbsfleet of all the sites that have been identified along the high-speed rail link line, we have the acreage for the supporting development for an international station.
Ebbsfleet's international station could be a focus for all those plans for the east Thames corridor. I believe—it is one of my hobbyhorses—that it could be an ideal location for a major new exhibition and conference centre on a vast European scale. The station would put us on the first stop of the rail link, before London, and it would have direct links to London, Paris and Brussels. It would also have the advantage of being convenient for the M25.
There are many other plans for major new projects in the area, such as the Bluewater development, and there is

plenty of scope for industrial and technology parks. Indeed, it has been said that 34,000 jobs could be created in the process.
We have the right people to staff all those projects, especially the people in Northfleet, in my constituency. The area is bursting with talent. We have good schools, in the Northfleet school for boys and the Northfleet school for girls. Further afield, we have major Church schools and grammar schools. Above all, we have the north-west Kent college of technology, with its campuses in Dartford and in Gravesend. We have the skills, and we have first-class people for a first-class development. I believe that the whole project could be a focus for Britain in the 21st century.
I shall highlight the specific advantages for my constituents if the project goes ahead. Like the people of Dartford, we would have an immense advantage in commuting to London. The journey time would come down from the current 50 minutes or so from Gravesend and Northfleet to the 17 minutes mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford.
There would inevitably be new roads servicing the area, linked to the A2. In particular, the development would finally bring about the Northfleet bypass, which would bring relief to residents in the areas of the high street, Northfleet, and of the Springhead and Dover roads, who have long put up with heavy goods vehicles in streets never designed for the kind of weights to which they are already subjected. For those people, it would bring relief, and for all residents in that part of north-west Kent, especially in Northfleet, it would increase the values of their houses.
Certain preliminaries and safeguards should be taken into account when considering siting the international station at Ebbsfleet. A full archaeological survey of the Roman remains in the immediate area will be necessary. That matter can be thoroughly examined and dealt with before the construction of the station.
The plans for the station and the nearby area must also take account of the environment of the ancient Ebbsfleet watercourse. With the modern techniques of planning and environmental conservation now available to us, plans can and should be developed to ensure that the environment is taken fully into account.
The Ebbsfleet international station has the unanimous support of both sides of Gravesham borough council, and I believe also of Kent county council. 1 can certainly say that the Conservatives of Northfleet and Gravesham are enthusiastic, keen and supportive, and that they look fdrward to the project being approved by the Government and going ahead.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on their contributions to this important debate.
There is a tendency to run down Great Britain and its achievements or plans. That is most true in respect of infrastructure. The Ebbsfleet international station is a great project of which I hope that we can all be proud. The Opposition and the press continue to commit the same mistake of always looking down on our achievements and finding fault. Why cannot we be proud—

Mr. Nick Raynsford: rose—

Mr. Freeman: No, I shall not give way. I am responding to my hon. Friends—[Interruption.] I shall respond; there is time enough. With respect, I am making the point that this important project should be looked on with some enthusiasm and pride. We should be looking beyond our noses to the achievements—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will be patient, I shall respond.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford mentioned the importance of a station at north Ebbsfleet. It is perfectly true that on 24 January my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said that that project appeared to have the edge over Rainham. Although at that stage there was no clear reason to select Ebbsfleet over Rainham, we said that we would examine carefully the alternatives to serve as a park-and-ride facility for those wishing to travel to the continent.
We acknowledged the support given by Blue Circle plc, an important private sector backer of the station at Ebbsfleet. I can confirm that we looked to the promoters of that station and to all those affected by it to submit their views by mid-April to enable Ministers to make a judgment, I hope, by the end of April, thus fulfilling our commitment to reach a conclusion on where the intermediate station should be within three months of my right hon. Friend's statement at the end of January. There are still three locations in the running—Stratford, Rainham and Ebbsfleet.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we believe that we need at least one of those stations—although two may be sensible—in addition to the station that is now being built at Ashford. That in turn is an achievement. The private sector led by Laing is financing the construction of a new station which I hope will be ready by the end of next year to handle international passengers. It is of excellent design and will be a credit to the rail system.
We hope that when we have the views of the private sector promoters of the north Ebbsfleet and other stations we can come to a decision by the end of April to enable the information to be included in the tender documentation that we hope to publish in June and to permit work on the Bill to proceed so that a Bill will be ready for presentation to Parliament by the beginning of the new Session.
We have decided to de-couple the preparation of the Bill from the selection of the private sector group to promote the rail link. That will be an advantage because it will enable us to proceed, if parliamentary time permits and if the Bill is included in the Queen's Speech, according to the fastest possible timetable. I look forward very much to the early prospect of its Second Reading. That is clear proof of our commitment.
The criteria that we shall use in judging which station to select close to the Queen Elizabeth II bridge, which carries the M25, will turn on the financial package advanced by the promoters but also—I agree with my hon. Friend on this point—on the benefit to the economy of Kent and the east Thames corridor, and that of Essex and all the east London boroughs. There is a regenerative benefit to building a railway station. There is an argument about how much benefit it brings. Any hon. Member who has been to Lille station in northern France will know that there is clearly some benefit. I admire what the French have done. The building of that station and the complex surrounding it is clearly of benefit.

Mr. Raynsford: indicated assent.

Mr. Freeman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.

Mr. Raynsford: They have done it.

Mr. Freeman: The French have done it. With a new rail link and the stations attached to it, we will build a shining example of good British civil engineering design. In 10 or 20 years' time, it will be the French who look at the excellence of our new high-speed rail link. I am getting carried away with my enthusiasm. I shall return specifically to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford.
My hon. Friend was right to say that journey times will be cut in half. It will be a tremendous boon to those who live in Ramsgate, Margate, Gillingham and Gravesham —and, incidentally, to those who catch trains at Dartford, because the railway lines into Charing Cross will be less congested. There will also be marvellous uncovenanted benefits to those who live to the west of a station at Ebbsfleet, if it is selected and built.
I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks reminded me that the Dartford and Gravesham local authorities support the concept of the station. I seem to spend a lot of my time dealing with local authorities which are not so supportive of a new project that is designed to help the economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford asked two questions. The first related to blockages on the A2. I can assure him that we will be careful to ensure that there is the minimum possible inconvenience when it comes to the construction of trunk road and highway authority road schemes. I am well aware of the effect on villages of traffic being diverted from main roads. Construction must be carefully planned.
I am happy to tell the House, as I have already answered in a written question, that I can confirm that we have accepted the advice of my colleagues who represent constituencies in north Kent to include in the Bill a provision for some road schemes, especially the road scheme on the M2 between junctions 1 and 4. That means that we can plan concurrently for the improvement to not only rail journeys but road journeys. That makes sense. It is a good example of integrated transport planning in action that we can consider both road and rail schemes at the same time. I use my definition of the phrase "integrated transport planning", which is sensible and practical simultaneous planning. We are not talking about detailed planning in 10 or 20 years' time; we are talking about how to avoid the inconvenience to constituents by ensuring that we do not have to revisit a specific location and rebuild at the same time.
As for the Gravesend west line, I can confirm that we will explain to all those affected the compensation schemes provided, especially in terms of those who live within the safeguarded area—the voluntary purchase scheme that will apply—and those who live outside it, and their qualification for having their houses insulated or, indeed, in some cases purchased where appropriate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham raised several points. If a station is selected at Ebbsfleet north —or, indeed, Stratford or Rainham; this afternoon, I met a group of people promoting the station at Stratford—the potential is enormous for not only business, commercial and retail development but all aspects of development,


including leisure, which could capture the benefit of international passengers coming into the country. I cite again the example of Lille where I was impressed with the related development. I agree with my hon. Friend.
As to the archaeological remains, we will take great care. I can confirm that, when a Bill is introduced, we will simultaneously present the environmental statement, as we are required to do under European law. That will take a great deal of preparation this year, which is one reason why the fastest possible timetable that we can adhere to is to present a Bill, if possible and if permitted to do so, at the beginning of the new parliamentary Session.
As to Pepper Hill, I pay tribute to what my hon. Friend has achieved in looking after his constituents. He has made the Government and Union Railways rethink the options. Considerable progress has been made not only at Pepper Hill but also at Ashford. I envisage that, after the mid-April cut-off point for final representations from local authorities and from those who live in the areas affected, we should be able to make a statement concerning both Pepper Hill and Ashford by the end of April. We must look carefully at the increased costs which would arise for any new route.
The early indications are that some of the alternative options at which Union Railways is looking both at Ashford and Pepper Hill are encouraging in terms of minimising the impact upon the environment and upon those who live close by the centre of Ashford and on the Pepper Hill estate, but still provide the fast direct link that we want.
I believe that, when we present a Bill in due course, the House will be persuaded that the impact upon those who live in Kent and in London will be minimised. I do not deny that there will be an impact. We cannot build a new railway line or a new road without causing some discomfort. I am well aware of the problems at Barking and just outside St Pancras. If we can minimise the impact in those areas—as well as at Ashford and Pepper Hill—we will end up with a rail link which represents good news for Britain, good news for Kent and good news for the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford and for Gravesham.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'clock.